Question for Pro-choicers
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Which reinforces my position, I deem. Most will, if asked.
I agree that most will. My statement was that there are many that will not and they deserve to be in a separate category, IMO.
Immanuel
Junior Member
I wasn't agruing against you. Just pointing out my experience.
Heck, it is even possible, that my wife's doctor would if asked. He's a Christian and told her that he did not, but that does not mean he is always 100% honest. To date we have no evidence that he lied and prefer to keep it that way.
Immie
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of those who will self-identify as Christian also.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
I know you're not. I'm trying to change the subject again.
I find the phrase "he's a Christian" mildly annoying in this context. The label has been effectively hijacked in this country. There's a complex of traits most of us associate with it that actually have little to do with the majority of Christians.
Immanuel
Junior Member
I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of those who will self-identify as Christian also.
Only 50%?
Thanks to the lies that your side has spread over the last 40 years, I am surprised that the number is that low. Your side has made abortion out to be at the very least a "necessary evil", but more like a "gift from God".
If your side doesn't start trying to reign itself in and at least declare abortion a national tragedy that should not be considered as an alternative to birth control then we will have a major issue on our hand. Oh wait we already do.
Then again if my side would attempt to show some of the compassion that they so frequently claim and stop working against your side's efforts to help the woman involved in a crisis pregnancy... oh well, we're doomed.
Immie
Brent
Ahorrado por Gracia
What are you talking about?
Immanuel
Junior Member
Is what I wrote that hard to understand?
If Pro-lifers would put their money where their mouths are, and if they would show compassion to unwed mothers we could possibly come to a compromise that might lead to a vastly reduced number of abortions.
Immie
Yeah - well a good start would be begin adopting children OF ALL RACES, at least then you're side will seem a little less disingenous and perhaps you can ween some of those on the other side of the spectrum to your side and they will not take your sanctimonius rants as empty rhetoric. But that ain't gonna happen.
Immanuel
Junior Member
I'm not attacking. I'm merely pointing out that if the anti-choisers were genuinely concerned with welfare and livelihood of these children as they pretend to be there would be no children in orphanages and that its no secret that minority children are in much less deman than white children for adoption. There's a huge opportunity for you guys to show the world you're not disingenuine.
Immanuel
Junior Member
Sorry, but your solution is not always feasible.
I find it funny though how your side believes that it is the requirement of the other side to jump through hoops while your side will not do anything to bring about a compromise. I guess your side thinks they have the high road and don't need to compromise.
Immie
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Neither is carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term always feasible.
Sorry, but your solution is not always feasible.
I find it funny though how your side believes that it is the requirement of the other side to jump through hoops while your side will not do anything to bring about a compromise. I guess your side thinks they have the high road and don't need to compromise.
Immie
You're the ones actively trying to interfere with people's lives. We are simply saying the gov't should stay out of it. Pro-choicers "comprise" is free will, anti-choicers are the one's actively trying to impede on that free will. And lets be clear: its the anti-choicers that want other people to jump through hoops to live by a set of ethical standards that they believe in. I'm simply saying
ut your money where you mouth is.
Immanuel
Junior Member
Except in the case of rape the woman was not forced into the pregnancy. I assume that most women who get pregnant know how they got that way.
Immie
Immanuel
Junior Member
You're the ones actively trying to interfere with people's lives. We are simply saying the gov't should stay out of it. Pro-choicers "comprise" is free will, anti-choicers are the one's actively trying to impede on that free will. And lets be clear: its the anti-choicers that want other people to jump through hoops to live by a set of ethical standards that they believe in. I'm simply saying
That is a matter of opinion but let us be honest as far as you are concerned yours is the only one that counts. As far as I am concerned we should always err on the side of life.
Immie
Last edited:
the common ground we all have, is to limit unwanted pregnancies. That will dramatically reduce the demand for abortions.
We need over the counter Plan B contraception and universal health care, so women have access to reproductive health care. And please: realistic sex education plays a role in limiting unwanted contraception. The "abstinence-only" education won't work.
Western european Countries that promote contraception and provide univershal health care, generally have much lower abortion rates than the United States.
We need over the counter Plan B contraception and universal health care, so women have access to reproductive health care. And please: realistic sex education plays a role in limiting unwanted contraception. The "abstinence-only" education won't work.
Western european Countries that promote contraception and provide univershal health care, generally have much lower abortion rates than the United States.