pro-choice arguement

[dairygirl4u2c]

I have a simple request. I would like people here to give the pro-choice argument against the pro-life movement.

Even if it's illogical, I would still like you to give it. You can add your own argument too if you want but that's not what I'm here to see. If I were grading you, I would giving more points to how well you explain the prochoice argument.

Edited December 31, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[james]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 31 2004, 05:23 PM'] I have a simple request. I would like people here to give the pro-choice argument against the pro-life movement.

[/quote]
There is none.

[b]Abortion and the English Language[/b]

by Joseph Sobran


In his famous essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell analyzed the corrupting influence of dishonest politics on the way we speak and think. There is no better example than the effect abortion has had on our language.

Though abortion -- including the killing of viable infants at the verge of birth -- is now a sacrament of the Democratic Party, nobody admits to being "pro-abortion"; they are "pro-choice." This is an obvious lie. The right to choose anything presupposes the right to live. The child, fetus, embryo, or whatever you want to call the entity growing within its mother's womb has no "choice" about being killed. It will never have a choice about anything.

The pro-abortion side is pro-abortion in the same way that advocates of slavery were pro-slavery. "Oh," they protest, "but we don't insist that everyone get an abortion; we only want people" -- that is, mothers -- "to have a choice!" Then nobody was pro-slavery either, since nobody insisted that every white man own a slave; they were "pro-choice." They wanted each white man to be "free" to decide whether to buy slaves; or they wanted every state to decide whether to permit slavery. Of course they overlooked the obvious fact that the slaves themselves had no choice; in their minds this was irrelevant.

The bad conscience of the pro-aborters shows in their studious avoidance of the word kill to describe what abortion is. Why be coy about it? We don't mind speaking of "killing" when we kill lower life forms. Lawn products kill weeds; mouthwashes kill germs; insecticides kill bugs; mousetraps kill mice. If the human fetus is an insignificant little thing, why shrink from saying an abortion kills it? But the pro-abortion side prefers the evasive euphemism that abortion "terminates a pregnancy."

As Orwell noted, dishonest people instinctively prefer the abstract to the concrete. Abstract language avoids creating unpleasant mental images that might cause horror and shame; concrete language may remind us of what we are really doing. This is why military jargon dehumanizes the targets of bombs and artillery: so that soldiers and pilots won't vividly imagine the men, women, and children they are killing. Part of the job of military leadership is to anesthetize the consciences of fighting men. And political leaders (who usually start the wars in the first place) do their part by describing the bombing of cities as "defending freedom."

In the modern world people are trained to avoid looking directly at the effects of violence they commit or sanction. If possible, the killing is delegated to specialists, who themselves are increasingly remote from their victims -- as in recent U.S. bombings of Iraq and Yugoslavia, where American casualties were nearly zero. Most of us don't mind if our military kills people on the other side of the world; we feel no pain, even vicariously. We may even buy the official explanation that our bombs are "preventing another Holocaust." It may seem otherwise to the Iraqis and Slavs on whose homes those bombs are falling.

But just as the news media refrain from showing us what those bombs actually do, they never show us what an abortion looks like. They even refuse to carry ads by abortion opponents, on grounds that pictures of slaughtered fetuses are in "bad taste." They certainly are in bad taste; all atrocities are. But the media are willing to show some atrocities, as in the killing fields of Rwanda a few years ago. Since we're forever debating abortion, why not let us see one? Why the blackout?

The answer, of course, is that the news media themselves are pro-abortion. They adopt the dishonest language of the pro-abortion side: pro-choice, fetus, terminate, and -- my favorite -- abortion provider (to make the abortionist sound like a humanitarian).

A few years ago NBC produced a sympathetic movie about a woman seeking an abortion -- Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade. But when Mrs. McCorvey later changed her mind and became an active opponent of abortion, did NBC do a sequel? Unimaginable.

We have to keep our guard up at all times against political language, especially in seemingly bland journalism, that is subtly infected with propagandistic purposes

[Sinner]

So you think ur gonna get some Catholic to take a baby killing stance and make an argument for it in the name of "philosophical debate"?
--Wishful subversive attempt.

[james]

[b]None Dare Call It Killing[/b]

Joseph Sobran

January 25, 2001

Our new president has angered feminists, liberal editorialists, “civil libertarians,” and other abortion advocates by cutting off federal aid to groups that promote abortion abroad. The Washington Post says his act was not “bipartisan,” but “divisive,” with “ugly” consequences.

As I read the denunciations, I noticed, for the hundredth time, a curious aversion shared by all advocates of abortion: they shun the word kill. As in, “An abortion kills a human fetus.” That’s what we’re talking about, right? Killing a fetus? It’s alive, growing, moving by its own impulses (not its mother’s will), until an abortionist — I mean “abortion provider” — cuts it apart or vacuums it out or applies a lethal chemical, and it dies.

Why be squeamish? We use the word kill freely in other contexts. We kill crabgrass, germs, moths, cockroaches, hornets, mice, and rats. We have to kill mammals, birds, and fish before we eat them. You got a problem with that?

George W. Bush is often criticized, by the same progressive-minded folks who favor abortion, for killing murderers who have actually been convicted and sentenced to die by others, merely for refusing to intervene to prevent their scheduled deaths. He has never killed a murderer with his own hands, but his critics don’t mind extending the word to apply it to his acquiescence.

But in keeping with the general code of ideologically prescribed etiquette often ridiculed under the heading of “political correctness,” there is a strong taboo in the media against describing abortion as what it unquestionably is: killing. If a woman pays for an abortion and the fetus isn’t killed, she hasn’t gotten her money’s worth. She wants that thing dead.

The taboo goes beyond words. The media show lots of grisly pictures, from Rwanda, Serbia, and the Middle East, often with prior warnings that you may not want to watch or let your children see. But they never show dead fetuses. Only a “pro-lifer” would make you look at such a thing. When you see a picture of the result of an abortion, you know instantly that some “pro-lifer” has violated the liberal code of decency.

Abortion advocates hate those pictures. They complain a lot more about the people who show them than about the people who make them possible. As the poet says: “Their best conscience is not to leave it undone, but keep it unknown.”

The abortion advocates don’t want us to know, see, or think about what abortion is. They are now complaining that Bush has imposed a “gag rule” on pro-abortion groups. But this is nothing compared with their own self-imposed gag rule that forbids frank public discussion of fetal killing.

Notice that I’m not calling it murder. That’s a moral and legal term. Killing is a simple, undeniable physical description. But if you call abortion killing, you are already perilously close to admitting that it’s a form of murder.

Everyone knows that that’s what it amounts to. Why else would they shrink from simple candor about the physical facts? If a fetus were a mere piece of tissue, with no more moral significance than an inflamed appendix, why would anyone feel discomfort about destroying it?

And why, if the fetus were really felt to be worthless, would abortion advocates insist on being called pro-choice rather than pro-abortion? The people who were (so to speak) pro-choice about slavery were called pro-slavery, though they didn’t want to force anyone to own slaves. They merely wanted the state to protect the right of some people to own others.

The abortion advocates like the smart slogan “Against abortion? Don’t have one.” Imagine the pro-slavery equivalent: “Against slavery? Don’t own one.”

Sometimes we are hypocrites in what we say. But we can also be hypocrites in our silence, including evasions of the terribly obvious. Millions of human beings are being killed in their mother’s wombs, where, of all places, they should be safest.

And this is all right by millions of other people, who, however, refuse to say so in plain English. They claim to protect women’s rights, freedom, the Constitution, even the children who are being killed — who, if allowed to live, they triumphantly point out, would have to be fed.

Why, there’s not a single advocate of killing among them!

Edited January 1, 2005 by james

[Dreamweaver]

Do you want us to actually come up with a pro-abortion argument to defend abortion? Or rather come up with things pro-abortion people claim, in order to polish up pro-life apologetics?

Simple biology states that a new human form, different from its mother and father is formed at the moment of conception. I believe that it is wrong to kill something as innocent as an unborn child, deserving of life just as every other human has the right to live. Sure, the fetus is dependant upon its mother, but isn't every child dependant upon a parental figure until they're 18? (and many times much later).

[cooltuba]

I'm pro-choice. A woman's right to choose is the time before she has sex at a time in her life when she is either unwilling or unable to have a child.


--Tim

[Q the Ninja]

"I'm pro-choice...33% of the vote goes to the mommy, 33% of the vote goes to the daddy, 33% of the vote goes to the baby, and the baby has VETO POWERS!"

~ Homily

[Theoketos]

Well I would look to the founder Margerat Sanger:

She said it would be a great way to reduce "the poor and black races." And seeing how these are the people most effected, I think the point of it is being accomplished nicely.


<<<Wants to puke for typing that.

I prefer a prefentail option for the poor.

[Dreamweaver]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Jan 1 2005, 03:59 AM'] "I'm pro-choice...33% of the vote goes to the mommy, 33% of the vote goes to the daddy, 33% of the vote goes to the baby, and the baby has VETO POWERS!"

~ Homily [/quote]
I do like that! Go babies! :infant:

[Sinner]

Pro Choice as above .........

[Benedict]

Just remember you have to wait for the baby to make his vote. And he takes a while; it usually takes about 9 months for him to show up.

[Socrates]

Dittos to all of the above statements and the articles of Mr. Sobran!

The "pro-choice arguments" (and I have heard them) are all based on lies.

They say it's a "woman's right to choose" what to do with "her own body."

Science has clearly proven the unborn child to be a human person distinct from the mother, with it's own DNA, own beating heart, own brainwaves, etc. The "pro-choice" argument in this respect is pure malarkey.

They claim abortion is protected by a "constitutional right to privacy."
Before it was "discovered" by judges in 1973, this "right" is nowhere written in the constitution!
If "privacy" is a justification of murder, then a woman should be allowed to privately, quietly murder her own 5-year kid in the privacy of her own home, so long as this is kept private and does not disturb the neighbors! Again, more nonsense!

Truth is the enemy of "pro-choice" arguments, and "pro-choicers" are enemies of the truth!

[Lil Red]

the thing i find most interesting is that even if one were not to believe that life starts at conception, that is starts when the heart beats (i think 2 weeks later)...this still would put most women in a murderous position because most women don't know exactly when they get pregnant, they have to wait for their period (which can be awhile, 2 or 3 weeks)....something to think about

[curtins]

there really is no real pro death argument that is real and not a lie or anything

thats cuz abortion IS killing
it iIS murdering an unborn child
and it IS rong

[*lil girl 4 jesus*]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Jan 1 2005, 03:59 AM'] "I'm pro-choice...33% of the vote goes to the mommy, 33% of the vote goes to the daddy, 33% of the vote goes to the baby, and the baby has VETO POWERS!"

~ Homily [/quote]
lol! (wish it was true about the baby veto part!)