Concern for the protection of women’s lives in anti-abortion laws is not a pro-choice ploy. It’s a p

[KWED]

Even in rape victims it should be considered.

Ooh, how magnanimous of you!

 

[KWED]

That's a significant concern, the emotional cost is often ignored. Even in women who want their baby are sometimes left in a delicate state of mind post birth, imagine when birth was forced upon the mother.

The "concern" pro-lifers show for the child ends at birth. They don't give a **** about them after that - which perfectly illustrates their motives.

 

[KWED]

I think the one hang up with rape is the innocence of the fetus.

One could argue that the concept of "innocence" requires sentience.

 

[KWED]

You mean like the free clinics pro life people are running all over the country?

Those "free clinics" are usually just fake abortion clinics used to trick vulnerable mothers.
Where is the post-natal support for all those single mothers and unwanted babies? I don't remember seeing any "pro-life" work to support them. Why are there any children in care at all? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

[KWED]

Then why are the pro death advocates always harping on saving the woman's life?

They aren't. It only becomes an issue when the anti-abortion brigade want to remove the ability for doctors to perform a late term abortion to save a mother's life.

 

[KWED]

Horse pucky. The pro life do more for unplanned pregnancies than the pro death crowd ever did. They offer free help, with no strings attached.

Bullshjt! The anti-abortionists do nothing for all the single mothers on low incomes or the thousands of children in care. They don't offer nationwide free childcare so young mothers can finish their education.
It's all about punishing sinful women. I would respect your position more if you just admitted it.

 

[KWED]

Deliberately killing someone is the same in your world as not donating all your organs while you are still alive?
Abortion is a deliberate act that causes a death. It's not a passive action like failing to donate organs.

I need a kidney to live.
You have two but only need one.
If you refuse to give me one when I ask, you are murdering me out of selfishness.

 

[KWED]

Which is again simply wrong. Surely you can see the difference between deliberately killing a person and passively failing to save someone's life.

So you wouldn't throw a baby into the river, but if the baby fell in, you wouldn't jump in to save it?
So much for being "pro-life".

 

[KWED]

Who gets to decide if the life of the mother is in danger?

A Christian Right politician, obvs!

 

[PruePhillip]

But this would never be necessary as the millions of "pro-lifers", whose only concern is the welfare of the child, would immediately jump in and adopt them.
What's that?
Oh...

If you can't win an argument with reason, just make **** up!

The figure for euthenasia is about 47% of 'patients' want to die because they feel they are a burden.
This was promised to never happen, according to euthenasia advocates going back two decades.

 

[PruePhillip]

Indeed.
The "pro-lifers" are in some ways similar to the slave owners, insisting that they should have control over the bodily autonomy of other people, and the welfare of those people be damned.
Good analogy.

Pro-choicers are similar to slave owners, insisting they have control over the lives of unborn children - the lives of the unborn be damned.

 

[pearl]

The abortion is then necessary due to both physical and psychological medical emergency.

Ironically, that was the original intent of Roe v Wade which never approved abortion on demand.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you wouldn't throw a baby into the river, but if the baby fell in, you wouldn't jump in to save it?
So much for being "pro-life".

I would do whatever I could to save her. But if you can't see the difference between murder and not saving everyone, you aren't being honest.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Those "free clinics" are usually just fake abortion clinics used to trick vulnerable mothers.
Where is the post-natal support for all those single mothers and unwanted babies? I don't remember seeing any "pro-life" work to support them. Why are there any children in care at all? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

The same places offer free materials for after birth also. You really have no clue. Abortion clinics don't do anything for babies that are already born.
I have no idea what "fake abortion clinic" is supposed to mean.

 

[KWED]

The figure for euthenasia is about 47% of 'patients' want to die because they feel they are a burden.
This was promised to never happen, according to euthenasia advocates going back two decades.

What is this "figure for euthanasia", and from which orifice did you pull it?
There are a handful of countries where euthanasia is legal, and it is only allowed in cases of severe illness, suffering, etc, with the consent of medical professionals. You can't just wheel your nan down the doctor and get him to sort her out because she's signed over her house.

However, when the time comes that I am no longer able to live life on my own terms, I want to be able to arrange a swift and dignified exit, on my own terms. Who wouldn't?
This is just another example of the religious right trying to exercise control over what other people do with their bodies.
The ultimate irony is that many who are against voluntary euthanasia are also for the death penalty.
"You want to die? Well, you can't. You don't want to die? Tough, I'm killing you."
You couldn't make it up!

 

[KWED]

Pro-choicers are similar to slave owners, insisting they have control over the lives of unborn children - the lives of the unborn be damned.

When an early-stage foetus expresses its desire to be free of the tyranny of the mother and live life on its own but the mother refuses and keeps it in there for 9 months, you might have a point.

 

[KWED]

Ironically, that was the original intent of Roe v Wade which never approved abortion on demand.

There is no "abortion on demand" as such. It is a procedure that has to be approved and performed medical professionals. They don't have to carry out the procedure if they decide otherwise.

 

[KWED]

I would do whatever I could to save her. But if you can't see the difference between murder and not saving everyone, you aren't being honest.

It has been repeatedly explained to you that abortion is not murder, by definition.
The fact that you keep referring to it as such just shows both the dishonesty and weakness of your argument.

But anyway, I don't see any real moral difference in throwing a child in the river and standing there and watching while one drowns when you could easily save it.
They are both deliberate, calculated actions that result in the unnecessary death of a child that will be missed by its family.
(And no, you can't compare an unwanted, early-stage foetus to a child that is loved by its parents - although I understand that it's pretty much all you have)

 

[KWED]

The same places offer free materials for after birth also. You really have no clue. Abortion clinics don't do anything for babies that are already born.
I have no idea what "fake abortion clinic" is supposed to mean.

So there are no young, single mothers struggling to raise a child? There are no neglected infants or young children? They are all well provided for by the anti-abortion brigade?
Do yourself a favour!
The situation is already desperate with reasonable access to abortion. How bad do you think it will get when thousands of unwanted babies are born every year to resentful mothers unable and unwilling to care for them?
And then there are the thousands of avoidable maternal deaths through unsafe abortion.
But you don't care about any of that, do you. You just wasn't to punish sinful women and claim moral superiority.

 

[F1fan]

The figure for euthenasia is about 47% of 'patients' want to die because they feel they are a burden.
This was promised to never happen, according to euthenasia advocates going back two decades.

And what is wrong with a person having the right to decide to end their own life when they feel as if the suffering is too great to bear? Big Christian Government says the person doesn't have the right, and only due to religious beliefs that should be personal.

Pro-choicers are similar to slave owners, insisting they have control over the lives of unborn children - the lives of the unborn be damned.

That's funny since Christian theology says once you are born you are damned to hell, unless you accept Jesus as savior once you have the ability to utter the words.

But you are wrong. Pro-choicers just advocate for the right for a woman to make her own health care decisions where it comes to reproduction. Even doctors are refusing to help many women because laws are so ambiguous that they might be sued, so more harm to women for the "pro-life" side. They aren't pro-life, they are pro-dogma, and that means the dogma is more important than life. The claim of pro-life is inconsistent with their actions and judgments. As noted the pro-life side does not sort healthcare for women and all citizens as a right. Healthcare access IS the right to life.