Political Crossfire Forums

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: Prove it. Talk is cheap. have you worked for the reduction of abortions? Are you advocating for effective, scientific sex-ed, better, cheaper and more available contraception, and more support for pregnant women and new families? If not, then your claim to be against abortion rings hollow and dishonest, indicating instead your support for unwanted pregnancies without access to abortion as a means of oppressing and controlling women.

So "put up or shut up."

:lol: You're pretty nervy.

The burden of proof is on you, because the claim is that people who oppose abortion do this because they want some one to suffer or they want to control women.

Can you prove this?

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

I agree with you, Cap n queasy.. If whomever wrote that really was such a strong advocate for abortion, then they could tell us stories of their volunteer work in the field, and not sound like such a hypocrite.

The funny thing is- pro lifers are trying to help women avoid all the negative implications that destroying their fetus usually brings. Sure, there might be a sense of relief immediately afterwards, but how many women really look back and say "That was sooo good for me!" They really dont. Most of em just try to forget it, from what I have seen, and many get very hostile and overly defensive about it.

anselfir · Joined: 16 Apr 2005 Posts: 23116 Location: ZzZzZzZz

idiotic.

usuchamp · Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 272

With sex-ed, lectures from parents, and a variety of contraceptive methods that may be employed before, during, or after sex, it seems women would have difficulty in achieving unwanted pregnancies. Then choosing to not live with the foreseen consequences shows a lack of responsibility. The unborn, however, hasn't been allowed to grow up to make the same stupid choices.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

usuchamp wrote: With sex-ed, lectures from parents, and a variety of contraceptive methods that may be employed before, during, or after sex, it seems women would have difficulty in achieving unwanted pregnancies. Then choosing to not live with the foreseen consequences shows a lack of responsibility. The unborn, however, hasn't been allowed to grow up to make the same stupid choices.
Hmm had sex ed..yes..chose contraceptive..yes (condoms because the pill caused nausea and sickness)..hmm had sex with loved one..think he is the one...thats strange my period didn't come (have had this happen to a girlfriend, my sister got pregnant while on the pill). But I don't want to be pregnant? What they changed the law! I can't afford to bring up my child properly, I'm single alone and jobless, no welfare, what the %^&* am i supposed to do now. Illegal Abortion clinic, oh s**t what did they give me, I had better call the ambulance......

Hmm saw video on dangers of smoking...smoked anyway...hmm have lung cancer, thats Ok I have good medical they can fix it, I might even be able to continue smoking afterwards. I don't have to live with my choice.

usuchamp · Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 272

Quote: Hmm had sex ed..yes..chose contraceptive..yes (condoms because the pill caused nausea and sickness)..hmm had sex with loved one..think he is the one...thats strange my period didn't come (have had this happen to a girlfriend, my sister got pregnant while on the pill). But I don't want to be pregnant? What they changed the law! I can't afford to bring up my child properly, I'm single alone and jobless, no welfare, what the %^&* am i supposed to do now. Illegal Abortion clinic, oh s**t what did they give me, I had better call the ambulance......

Hmm saw video on dangers of smoking...smoked anyway...hmm have lung cancer, thats Ok I have good medical they can fix it, I might even be able to continue smoking afterwards. I don't have to live with my choice.

When you "think he is the one," do you mean the one to have unprotected sex with or the one to raise children with. If it's the first, you ought to know that sex has the potential to produce children, in which case you ought not to have unprotective sex anyway. Or, if you think some marginal sexual benefit comes from unprotected sex, then pills or patches could be used, or you could have surgery, or have him have surgery, etc. If "the one" is meant to be the father of your children, then changing your mind seems rather selfish and irresponsible. Many socialistic programs exist for helping pregnant women to delivery, and then the baby could be put up for adoption.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2356 Location: Edinburgh

Sailor Moon wrote:
The funny thing is- pro lifers are trying to help women avoid all the negative implications that destroying their fetus usually brings. Sure, there might be a sense of relief immediately afterwards, but how many women really look back and say "That was sooo good for me!" They really dont. Most of em just try to forget it, from what I have seen, and many get very hostile and overly defensive about it.
I would like source verifying such a position, one that shows that for women abortion "ususually" has negative implications, and that women generally regret having an abortion. Thanks.

Sataere · Joined: 27 Jan 2006 Posts: 226 Location: Ohio

Coral wrote:
Absolutely. It's a religious crusade positioned with enough spin to get some unsuspecting followers to crawl on board.

Really? I'm an atheist liberal democrat who's pro-life. I am not a part of any religious crusade. Explain me then.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Sataere wrote: Coral wrote:
Absolutely. It's a religious crusade positioned with enough spin to get some unsuspecting followers to crawl on board.

Really? I'm an atheist liberal democrat who's pro-life. I am not a part of any religious crusade. Explain me then. An abnormality. When you go to pro-life events, you will have to look far for others like you. It is almost guaranteed that these events begin with a rabid prayer, and that the leaders are fundamentalist men who complain that Bush is not conservative enough.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Prole wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:
The funny thing is- pro lifers are trying to help women avoid all the negative implications that destroying their fetus usually brings. Sure, there might be a sense of relief immediately afterwards, but how many women really look back and say "That was sooo good for me!" They really dont. Most of em just try to forget it, from what I have seen, and many get very hostile and overly defensive about it.
I would like source verifying such a position, one that shows that for women abortion "ususually" has negative implications, and that women generally regret having an abortion. Thanks.

OK.. here ya go- here are all those websites that people on here have made the choice to ignore, even though they are backed by past abortion providers, people who have had abortions in the past, and their family and friends:

http://gargaro.com/911.html

https://www.azcentral.com/my/zage.php?referer=http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/1203finkel03-CP.html

http://lifedynamics.com

http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/anon-1.html

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa102499.htm

http://www.circleofprayer.com/abortion-survival-testimonies.html

http://www.prolifeaction.org/truth/

Do you really need more, I mean, really? I have been pounding this into your head for months now, Prole... I would love it if you would please at least TRY TO GRASP THE ENORMITY OF THE SITUATION!! THAT IS: THE PRO LIFE STANCE ORIGINATES MAINLY FROM EXPERIENCE AND COMPASSION FOR EXPERIENCE!!!!!

EDIT:

Oh almost forgot:

Jane ROE, or ROE VS WADE, HERSELF!!!!! Sheesh!

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Prole wrote: I would like source verifying such a position, one that shows that for women abortion "ususually" has negative implications, and that women generally regret having an abortion. Thanks. There is no such evidence, of course. That kind of info generally comes from pro-life lie-sites.

conguy · Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 28

Steen,

Although a person may be dismissed from being a parasite considering a biological definition, raising something that costs thousands of dollars and being a huge timesink could also be defined as parasitic. Where do you draw the line? Obviously you only look at abortion as an escape from something feeding off your body, but I think most mothers abort because of the lifestyle penalties that a baby would bring.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

conguy wrote: Steen,

Although a person may be dismissed from being a parasite considering a biological definition, raising something that costs thousands of dollars and being a huge timesink could also be defined as parasitic. Where do you draw the line? Obviously you only look at abortion as an escape from something feeding off your body, but I think most mothers abort because of the lifestyle penalties that a baby would bring.

This applies to the men who support abortion, as well...

And actually, babies really arent parasites, either. Nope, cause without the full term pregnancy, women are more likely to partake in substance abuse (costs big money), go to jail (money) hang out with criminals, and get stolen from (money money), have depression, (money), complications (money) lose fertility (money money)... etc..

Plus the full term pregnancies, and motherhood helps women to make better life choices, better community support, more likeliness of going to school, the likeliness of looking for and finding a gentle boyfriend (babies have excellent instincts) and a lifetime of unconditional love.

A woman having an unplanned pregnancy deserves some unplanned joy.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

conguy wrote: Steen,

Although a person may be dismissed from being a parasite considering a biological definition, raising something that costs thousands of dollars and being a huge timesink could also be defined as parasitic. Parasit function is a biological concept. You may try to extrapolate outside biology, but that is really not my concern.

Quote: Where do you draw the line? Obviously you only look at abortion as an escape from something feeding off your body, but I think most mothers abort because of the lifestyle penalties that a baby would bring. Her reason for an abortion is irrelevant.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Sailor Moon wrote: And actually, babies really arent parasites, either. And neither are fetuses and embryos. But fetuses and embryos certainly function in a parasittic fashion.

Quote: Nope, cause without the full term pregnancy, women are more likely to partake in substance abuse (costs big money), go to jail (money) hang out with criminals, and get stolen from (money money), have depression, (money), complications (money) lose fertility (money money)... etc..

Plus the full term pregnancies, and motherhood helps women to make better life choices, better community support, more likeliness of going to school, the likeliness of looking for and finding a gentle boyfriend (babies have excellent instincts) and a lifetime of unconditional love. More "just because I say so" pro-life generalization.

Quote: A woman having an unplanned pregnancy deserves some unplanned joy. Such as finding out that she has the right to control her own bodily resources, yes.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2356 Location: Edinburgh

Sailor Moon wrote: Prole wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:
The funny thing is- pro lifers are trying to help women avoid all the negative implications that destroying their fetus usually brings. Sure, there might be a sense of relief immediately afterwards, but how many women really look back and say "That was sooo good for me!" They really dont. Most of em just try to forget it, from what I have seen, and many get very hostile and overly defensive about it.
I would like source verifying such a position, one that shows that for women abortion "ususually" has negative implications, and that women generally regret having an abortion. Thanks.

OK.. here ya go- here are all those websites that people on here have made the choice to ignore, even though they are backed by past abortion providers, people who have had abortions in the past, and their family and friends:

A few pieces of anecdotal evidence and links to anti-choice web sites do not prove that there are usually negative implications. They show a few isolated instances.

Sailor Moon wrote:
Do you really need more, I mean, really? I have been pounding this into your head for months now, Prole...I would love it if you would please at least TRY TO GRASP THE ENORMITY OF THE SITUATION!!
Well, that condescending tone is certainly going to convince me. :roll:

Sailor Moon wrote:
THAT IS: THE PRO LIFE STANCE ORIGINATES MAINLY FROM EXPERIENCE AND COMPASSION FOR EXPERIENCE!!!!!

EDIT:

Oh almost forgot:

Jane ROE, or ROE VS WADE, HERSELF!!!!! Sheesh!
I have no doubt that many people argue for anti-choice out of compassion for mother and/or offspring, nor have I ever stated otherwise. I believe that pro-choice individuals do the same, except that they believe the offspring for whatever reason to not be worthy of compassion to an extent that it would deny a woman the choice to abort. But ultimately, this is merely another ad hominem, except of a positive nature; saying that someone is justified because of their character (rather than wrong because of their character, as per a typical ad hominem). I do not subscribe to ad hominems, in terms of either attacks or praise.

Regardless of the rules of PCF (and I do not promoting an arguement based upon character is banned), I do not consider it a valid point that, "Position X is right, because those supporting it do so with noble intentions." Everyone believes that their intentions are noble. That does not necessarily make them right, nor is it persuasive in the slightest except as an appeal to emotion, which is obviously hardly valid for the purposes of debate.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Prole wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Prole wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:
The funny thing is- pro lifers are trying to help women avoid all the negative implications that destroying their fetus usually brings. Sure, there might be a sense of relief immediately afterwards, but how many women really look back and say "That was sooo good for me!" They really dont. Most of em just try to forget it, from what I have seen, and many get very hostile and overly defensive about it.
I would like source verifying such a position, one that shows that for women abortion "ususually" has negative implications, and that women generally regret having an abortion. Thanks.

OK.. here ya go- here are all those websites that people on here have made the choice to ignore, even though they are backed by past abortion providers, people who have had abortions in the past, and their family and friends:

A few pieces of anecdotal evidence and links to anti-choice web sites do not prove that there are usually negative implications. They show a few isolated instances.

No- they show abortion doctors testimonials to the effects of abortion. Doctors who have killed thousands of unborn babies, and have dealt with mothers who have come back crying, or left crying. Psychologists who have had these same things happen.

These are people who were pro choice at one time, including Norma McCorvey, your pro choice turned pro life poster girl. You dont have to believe HER or any of them, but can you tell me from personal experience, how women react before, during, and after an abortion, particularly in the clinics?

I rest my case. Dont knock their stories until youre fully prepared to come forth with some volunteer experience under your belt.

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote:
Do you really need more, I mean, really? I have been pounding this into your head for months now, Prole...I would love it if you would please at least TRY TO GRASP THE ENORMITY OF THE SITUATION!!
Well, that condescending tone is certainly going to convince me. :roll:

I am not going to sit here and argue with you. Just because you only choose to listen to current abortionists and future abortees and all the rest of the people living in denial, rather than listening to any real ex abortionists, and there are a great many of them,
doesnt mean anything to me. Im sure it means alot to you, though--- :roll:

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote:
THAT IS: THE PRO LIFE STANCE ORIGINATES MAINLY FROM EXPERIENCE AND COMPASSION FOR EXPERIENCE!!!!!

EDIT:

Oh almost forgot:

Jane ROE, or ROE VS WADE, HERSELF!!!!! Sheesh!
I have no doubt that many people argue for anti-choice out of compassion for mother and/or offspring, nor have I ever stated otherwise. I believe that pro-choice individuals do the same, except that they believe the offspring for whatever reason to not be worthy of compassion to an extent that it would deny a woman the choice to abort. But ultimately, this is merely another ad hominem, except of a positive nature; saying that someone is justified because of their character (rather than wrong because of their character, as per a typical ad hominem). I do not subscribe to ad hominems, in terms of either attacks or praise.

Regardless of the rules of PCF (and I do not promoting an arguement based upon character is banned), I do not consider it a valid point that, "Position X is right, because those supporting it do so with noble intentions." Everyone believes that their intentions are noble. That does not necessarily make them right, nor is it persuasive in the slightest except as an appeal to emotion, which is obviously hardly valid for the purposes of debate.

Oh great. Know what? YOU are the one giving ad hominems by twisting my post, defending pro lifers, into some sort of offensive against pro choicers.

Nice.

Keep it up.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2356 Location: Edinburgh

Sailor Moon wrote: No- they show abortion doctors testimonials to the effects of abortion.
This is literally what "anecdotal evidence" is; evidence based upon personal accounts. I do not doubt that there are some instances where abortion has been harmful, nor do I believe that individual instances are unimportant. However, they are just that; individual instances, and largely isolated ones at that.

One does not need first-hand experience to realize this, nor is one's opinion somehow invalid simply because they lack it (or valid because they have it). I find your continued insinuation that such inexperience makes my opinion somehow less than others to be offensive, untrue and unwarrented.

Sailor Moon wrote: Oh great. Know what? YOU are the one giving ad hominems by twisting my post, defending pro lifers, into some sort of offensive against pro choicers.
Please indicate where I attacked to anti-choicers, as I was quite careful not to be so. I was simply trying to show that it doesn't matter what personally drives people to think a certain way or fight for a certain cause. Unless you think that either group is inherently superior (as I believe that you do with anti-choice) and that implying equality of nobility is thus an offense to said group, I really do not see what quolm you have.

And if, as I suspect, you are offended because I do not accept your premise that anti-choice people are somehow better, then that's unfortunate. The air must be quite thin up there on your high-horse.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Prole wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: No- they show abortion doctors testimonials to the effects of abortion.
This is literally what "anecdotal evidence" is; evidence based upon personal accounts. I do not doubt that there are some instances where abortion has been harmful, nor do I believe that individual instances are unimportant. However, they are just that; individual instances, and largely isolated ones at that.

One does not need first-hand experience to realize this, nor is one's opinion somehow invalid simply because they lack it (or valid because they have it). I find your continued insinuation that such inexperience makes my opinion somehow less than others to be offensive, untrue and unwarrented.

Sailor Moon wrote: Oh great. Know what? YOU are the one giving ad hominems by twisting my post, defending pro lifers, into some sort of offensive against pro choicers.
Please indicate where I attacked to anti-choicers, as I was quite careful not to be so. I was simply trying to show that it doesn't matter what personally drives people to think a certain way or fight for a certain cause. Unless you think that either group is inherently superior (as I believe that you do with anti-choice) and that implying equality of nobility is thus an offense to said group, I really do not see what quolm you have.

And if, as I suspect, you are offended because I do not accept your premise that anti-choice people are somehow better, then that's unfortunate. The air must be quite thin up there on your high-horse.

Answered in the bold portion. I never once insinuated that- and that is YOUR ad hominem. This conversation is over, I am not going to continue this.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

usuchamp wrote: Quote: Hmm had sex ed..yes..chose contraceptive..yes (condoms because the pill caused nausea and sickness)..hmm had sex with loved one..think he is the one...thats strange my period didn't come (have had this happen to a girlfriend, my sister got pregnant while on the pill). But I don't want to be pregnant? What they changed the law! I can't afford to bring up my child properly, I'm single alone and jobless, no welfare, what the %^&* am i supposed to do now. Illegal Abortion clinic, oh s**t what did they give me, I had better call the ambulance......

Hmm saw video on dangers of smoking...smoked anyway...hmm have lung cancer, thats Ok I have good medical they can fix it, I might even be able to continue smoking afterwards. I don't have to live with my choice.

When you "think he is the one," do you mean the one to have unprotected sex with or the one to raise children with. If it's the first, you ought to know that sex has the potential to produce children, in which case you ought not to have unprotective sex anyway. Or, if you think some marginal sexual benefit comes from unprotected sex, then pills or patches could be used, or you could have surgery, or have him have surgery, etc. If "the one" is meant to be the father of your children, then changing your mind seems rather selfish and irresponsible. Many socialistic programs exist for helping pregnant women to delivery, and then the baby could be put up for adoption.
I think I stated condoms were used.

However I have been rereading this and I have to agree that the general gist of pro-life sentiment seems to be that sex is a sin, so you must suffer the consequences, based on quasi-religous rationalizations. This is a generalization and unprovable I admit, but seems to bear out on this forum quite often.