One of the Weakest Pro-Life Arguments

One of the Weakest Pro-Life Arguments is that their opinion should be made into law. The only comparable thing a pro-choicer could want is a law forcing all women to have abortions.

futureshock wrote:

One of the Weakest Pro-Life Arguments is that their opinion should be made into law. The only comparable thing a pro-choicer could want is a law forcing all women to have abortions.

Well, here's my best comparison.

Pretend abortion is neither legal nor illegal for a moment. Some women are of course getting abortions. Pro-choicers are lobbying their opinion that everyone should be allowed the right to make their own choice regarding abortion, and pro-lifers are lobbying their opinion that people should not be allowed to kill their unborn unless their is a good reason for doing so. My point is that being pro-choice is having opinions too, and the only reason it's not considered "turning your opinions into law" is because your opinion is already law.

Both sides have facts. Both sides have opinions.

Quote :

Pretend abortion is neither legal nor illegal for a moment.

This is impossible to do, since it is the pro-choice stance.

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

One of the Weakest Pro-Life Arguments is that their opinion should be made into law. The only comparable thing a pro-choicer could want is a law forcing all women to have abortions.

Well, here's my best comparison.

Pretend abortion is neither legal nor illegal for a moment. Some women are of course getting abortions. Pro-choicers are lobbying their opinion that everyone should be allowed the right to make their own choice regarding abortion, and pro-lifers are lobbying their opinion that people should not be allowed to kill their unborn unless their is a good reason for doing so. My point is that being pro-choice is having opinions too, and the only reason it's not considered "turning your opinions into law" is because your opinion is already law.

Both sides have facts. Both sides have opinions.

WRONG. Prochoice opinion is to respect opinions, prolife opinions is everyone should adhere to their opinion.

futureshock wrote:

Quote :

Pretend abortion is neither legal nor illegal for a moment.

This is impossible to do, since it is the pro-choice stance.

So you're saying the pro-choice stance is only viable because abortion is legal, and that if abortion were illegal, all pro-choicers would simply stop caring? "Oh well it's not legal, so that must mean it's not right." I highly doubt that.

Pretend the pro-choice stance is "abortion SHOULD be legal". There were pro-choicers pre Roe-v-Wade I'm sure, and they had to fight for legal abortion.

No, that is not what I meant at all. I meant the no law regarding abortion at all, as you mentioned,
"Pretend abortion is neither legal nor illegal for a moment."

is the pro-choice stance. There is no law on whether you can have your teeth cleaned, or if you can have your hair cut, or any other myriad of things. There should be no law regarding abortion, either. There is no law regarding childbirth, right?

futureshock wrote:

No, that is not what I meant at all. I meant the no law regarding abortion at all, as you mentioned,
"Pretend abortion is neither legal nor illegal for a moment."

is the pro-choice stance. There is no law on whether you can have your teeth cleaned, or if you can have your hair cut, or any other myriad of things. There should be no law regarding abortion, either. There is no law regarding childbirth, right?

I personally think that's stupid, sorry. I definitely feel their should be laws regarding abortion, whether protecting the woman's right to do so or to protect the unborn's right to live.

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

No, that is not what I meant at all. I meant the no law regarding abortion at all, as you mentioned,
"Pretend abortion is neither legal nor illegal for a moment."

is the pro-choice stance. There is no law on whether you can have your teeth cleaned, or if you can have your hair cut, or any other myriad of things. There should be no law regarding abortion, either. There is no law regarding childbirth, right?

I personally think that's stupid, sorry. I definitely feel their should be laws regarding abortion, whether protecting the woman's right to do so or to protect the unborn's right to live.

But that was not the subject we were discussing now, is it?

P.S. If an embryo is an unborn person, you are an undead corpse.

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

No, that is not what I meant at all. I meant the no law regarding abortion at all, as you mentioned,
"Pretend abortion is neither legal nor illegal for a moment."

is the pro-choice stance. There is no law on whether you can have your teeth cleaned, or if you can have your hair cut, or any other myriad of things. There should be no law regarding abortion, either. There is no law regarding childbirth, right?

I personally think that's stupid, sorry. I definitely feel their should be laws regarding abortion, whether protecting the woman's right to do so or to protect the unborn's right to live.

Medical procedures should follow safety regulations, not moral laws put in place by backwards politicians and zealot prolifers who have nothing at stake but their inflated egos.

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

No, that is not what I meant at all. I meant the no law regarding abortion at all, as you mentioned,
"Pretend abortion is neither legal nor illegal for a moment."

is the pro-choice stance. There is no law on whether you can have your teeth cleaned, or if you can have your hair cut, or any other myriad of things. There should be no law regarding abortion, either. There is no law regarding childbirth, right?

I personally think that's stupid, sorry. I definitely feel their should be laws regarding abortion, whether protecting the woman's right to do so or to protect the unborn's right to live.

But that was not the subject we were discussing now, is it?

P.S. If an embryo is an unborn person, you are an undead corpse.

I am indeed an undead corpse. And I thought that was the subject we were discussing, sorry. Actually, what I was trying to discuss was the fact that IF there was no abortion laws, then being pro-choice is as much an opinion as being pro-life.

EiriForLife wrote:

Actually, what I was trying to discuss was the fact that IF there was no abortion laws, then being pro-choice is as much an opinion as being pro-life.

Do you not see how that is the best way for everyone? Let everyone choose what is right for themselves, not the government imposing it's will against it's citizens.

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Actually, what I was trying to discuss was the fact that IF there was no abortion laws, then being pro-choice is as much an opinion as being pro-life.

Do you not see how that is the best way for everyone? Let everyone choose what is right for themselves, not the government imposing it's will against it's citizens.

Uh, no, because I consider the unborn to be a person so I do not see how having no abortion laws is good for them. It also would mean a mother could kill her child during labor if it was "too hard". If there were no regulations for abortion, it would not be safe.

EiriForLife wrote:

It also would mean a mother could kill her child during labor if it was "too hard". If there were no regulations for abortion, it would not be safe.

Oh this makes sense, because delivering a dead baby is way less painful than delivering a live one.

/sarcasm.

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

It also would mean a mother could kill her child during labor if it was "too hard". If there were no regulations for abortion, it would not be safe.

Oh this makes sense, because delivering a dead baby is way less painful than delivering a live one.

/sarcasm.

Hey, it would technically be legal. Can you deny that? Or does that fit under "regulations"? Or do you think abortion should be totally unregulated, too? Even cigarettes and alcohol are regulated.

The point is that your objection does not make sense.

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

It also would mean a mother could kill her child during labor if it was "too hard". If there were no regulations for abortion, it would not be safe.

Oh this makes sense, because delivering a dead baby is way less painful than delivering a live one.

/sarcasm.

Hey, it would technically be legal. Can you deny that? Or does that fit under "regulations"? Or do you think abortion should be totally unregulated, too? Even cigarettes and alcohol are regulated.

Medical procedures should follow safety reguations, not moral regulations put in place by uneducated prolifers.

EiriForLife wrote:

Hey, it would technically be legal. Can you deny that? Or does that fit under "regulations"? Or do you think abortion should be totally unregulated, too? Even cigarettes and alcohol are regulated.

Abortion will indeed become totally unregulated if you get your way.

Maz wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Hey, it would technically be legal. Can you deny that? Or does that fit under "regulations"? Or do you think abortion should be totally unregulated, too? Even cigarettes and alcohol are regulated.

Abortion will indeed become totally unregulated if you get your way.

Absolutely, exactly right.

Why does my objection make no sense?

EiriForLife wrote:

Why does my objection make no sense?

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

It also would mean a mother could kill her child during labor if it was "too hard". If there were no regulations for abortion, it would not be safe.

Oh this makes sense, because delivering a dead baby is way less painful than delivering a live one.

/sarcasm.

First, because killing a fetus because labor was "too hard" makes no sense because it is irrelevant whether the fetus is alive or dead. It still must be "delivered". i.e., must be removed from the womans body, "aborted". The pain is the same, so the objection is ridiculous.

Furthermore, you insult all women by suggesting a woman would carry a fetus for 9 months only to want to kill it during delivery. You are also ignorant of the fact that most late term abortions involve much wanted pregnancies that have gone horribly wrong, and are heartbreaking for the parents.

Finally, you forget that a woman owns her body, as a man owns his, and will do with it as she so desires, no matter how you or anyone else feels about it, whether it is legal or not.

Do you want to give up the autonomy over your own body to the government? Look at your own body right now. Can you imagine some government official having legal ownership over the inside of your own body? How can you not react with disgust and horror at such a thought???

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Why does my objection make no sense?

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

It also would mean a mother could kill her child during labor if it was "too hard". If there were no regulations for abortion, it would not be safe.

Oh this makes sense, because delivering a dead baby is way less painful than delivering a live one.

/sarcasm.

First, because killing a fetus because labor was "too hard" makes no sense because it is irrelevant whether the fetus is alive or dead. It still must be "delivered". i.e., must be removed from the womans body, "aborted". The pain is the same, so the objection is ridiculous.

Furthermore, you insult all women by suggesting a woman would carry a fetus for 9 months only to want to kill it during delivery. You are also ignorant of the fact that most late term abortions involve much wanted pregnancies that have gone horribly wrong, and are heartbreaking for the parents.

Finally, you forget that a woman owns her body, as a man owns his, and will do with it as she so desires, no matter how you or anyone else feels about it, whether it is legal or not.

Do you want to give up the autonomy over your own body to the government? Look at your own body right now. Can you imagine some government official having legal ownership over the inside of your own body? How can you not react with disgust and horror at such a thought???

I am not ignorant of that fact, or have you forgotten all of the times I stated it on eHealth? Stop lying.

A woman owns HER body, NOT the body of the baby. Period.

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Why does my objection make no sense?

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

It also would mean a mother could kill her child during labor if it was "too hard". If there were no regulations for abortion, it would not be safe.

Oh this makes sense, because delivering a dead baby is way less painful than delivering a live one.

/sarcasm.

First, because killing a fetus because labor was "too hard" makes no sense because it is irrelevant whether the fetus is alive or dead. It still must be "delivered". i.e., must be removed from the womans body, "aborted". The pain is the same, so the objection is ridiculous.

Furthermore, you insult all women by suggesting a woman would carry a fetus for 9 months only to want to kill it during delivery. You are also ignorant of the fact that most late term abortions involve much wanted pregnancies that have gone horribly wrong, and are heartbreaking for the parents.

Finally, you forget that a woman owns her body, as a man owns his, and will do with it as she so desires, no matter how you or anyone else feels about it, whether it is legal or not.

Do you want to give up the autonomy over your own body to the government? Look at your own body right now. Can you imagine some government official having legal ownership over the inside of your own body? How can you not react with disgust and horror at such a thought???

I am not ignorant of that fact, or have you forgotten all of the times I stated it on eHealth? Stop lying.

Then why would you want abortion to be illegal? It doesn't make sense.

Quote :

A woman owns HER body, NOT the body of the baby. Period.

First, when does the egg that a woman had had in her body since birth become "NOT" part of her body? Second, an embryo is most certainly part of a woman's body, and third, if you are really in control of your own body then you can decide what stays in and what comes out of your body,

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Why does my objection make no sense?

EiriForLife wrote:

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

It also would mean a mother could kill her child during labor if it was "too hard". If there were no regulations for abortion, it would not be safe.

Oh this makes sense, because delivering a dead baby is way less painful than delivering a live one.

/sarcasm.

First, because killing a fetus because labor was "too hard" makes no sense because it is irrelevant whether the fetus is alive or dead. It still must be "delivered". i.e., must be removed from the womans body, "aborted". The pain is the same, so the objection is ridiculous.

Furthermore, you insult all women by suggesting a woman would carry a fetus for 9 months only to want to kill it during delivery. You are also ignorant of the fact that most late term abortions involve much wanted pregnancies that have gone horribly wrong, and are heartbreaking for the parents.

Finally, you forget that a woman owns her body, as a man owns his, and will do with it as she so desires, no matter how you or anyone else feels about it, whether it is legal or not.

Do you want to give up the autonomy over your own body to the government? Look at your own body right now. Can you imagine some government official having legal ownership over the inside of your own body? How can you not react with disgust and horror at such a thought???

I am not ignorant of that fact, or have you forgotten all of the times I stated it on eHealth? Stop lying.

Then why would you want abortion to be illegal? It doesn't make sense.

Quote :

A woman owns HER body, NOT the body of the baby. Period.

First, when does the egg that a woman had had in her body since birth become "NOT" part of her body? Second, an embryo is most certainly part of a woman's body, and third, if you are really in control of your own body then you can decide what stays in and what comes out of your body,

It's unbelieveable that a woman would willfully turn over legal ownership of her body to the government. Maybe they don't think they are capable of making good decisions on their own.

The egg is no longer part of her body the moment it ovulates to be quite honest. Furthermore, it becomes a unique human upon fertilization. Upon implantation, it is DEPENDENT but not PART OF her body. At 8 weeks, it is a complete human being, a person, with all its needed organs in place.

EiriForLife wrote:

The egg is no longer part of her body the moment it ovulates to be quite honest. Furthermore, it becomes a unique human upon fertilization. Upon implantation, it is DEPENDENT but not PART OF her body. At 8 weeks, it is a complete human being, a person, with all its needed organs in place.

And therefore, while it is DEPENDENT upon HER BODY, its rights are secondary.