The tyrrany of the PC mentality: Store chain feels it necessary to proclaim its ad is NOT pro-life

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   
didn't jesus have to die so pro lifers could go to heaven?




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I'm pro choice too. I choose to NOT have my tax dollars support abortion. Oh yeah I don't have THAT choice.

So you "second choicers" want me to pay because your first choice, to have sex was a bad one?

You get two I get none?

if you want to kill your "bad choices" pay for it your self.

And as someone who took part in killing my own unborn child i must say it has never left me. i still wonder who it was i killed, cause have no doubt it WAS a person.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 



Originally posted by quietlearner
Dear Benevolent Heretic

From your responses you seem to be as much of the problem as pro-life extremists because you are a pro-choice extremist yourself, at least in your views you are you have the us vs them mentality, pro-choice vs pro-live bipartisanship the reality, like in many other complex legal and social problems, is that it is not black and white there is a whole lot of gray in the middle and most sensible people will lie in a shade of gray


If being adamant about my right to make medical decisions about my own body is an "extremist position" in your mind, then yes, call me extreme. If, on the other hand, wanting the government to make decisions about medical treatment of the people is "sensible" to you, then call yourself "sensible. I don't really care what words you use or what judgments you have.

It is my belief that each person should have the freedom to choose what happens to their bodies. That should not be a role of the government. And if that makes me an "extremist", so be it.



Would you not agree that abortions are a crude way of dealing with a much deeper and bigger problem?
or would you say that the pro-choice alternative is the perfect solution?


There is no "either/or". Both are true. Abortion is a crude way of dealing with the problem of unwanted pregnancy. But legally forcing a woman to carry and bear a child she does not want is FAR more crude. And autonomy (self-governing or pro-choice) is ALWAYS the right solution.

In my perfect world, there would be no abortion because there would be no unwanted pregnancies. Women of all ages would be fully educated on reproduction and all forms of contraception would be readily and freely available. That's my "gray area" That's my "sensible" solution.

But that's not good enough for the so called "pro-life" movement. They want, not only to force women to bear unwanted children, they want abstinence-only education in our schools and they want to outlaw most, if not all, contraception, too, making it impossible for women to make any choices about her reproduction (other than abstinence). And to me, that's not their place. It's not their business.

I was alive and aware when women were having back-alley abortions. You want to talk about "crude"? So, call me a pro-choice extremist. I will proudly wear the label. Because I believe in people's solemn right to their own persons. And I'm proud of that.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
This thread is ridiculous, and the title is even moreso.

"Publix clearing up an issue surrounding an ad that pro-lifers tried to hi-jack" would be more accurate.

Sweet Christ. The only issue here is these retard-infested pro-life groups forcing companies to do damage control because they can't find anywhere to grind their dull axe anymore.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword

This is a very pragmatic view point. It sounds like something my great aunt, who always wanted to be a nun, would have said to me.

I mean, first of all, adoption, the argument that a woman should sacrifice 9 months of her life, to give life, share that life with a couple who wants a child, rather than abort, is a noble thing to do, is a compelling argument in the pro-life agenda.

Further, many abortions are decided based on less then optimum health circumstances, when the fetus is found to have Down Syndrome, Spina Bifida, and other maladies that parent's don't feel capable of taking on.

But your solution is easy, never abort, pay the consequences.

Secondly, your stated point of view is an attempt at behavior modification, the ole "you do the crime, (sex) you do the time (parenting)" adage! Having a child, creating a family should never be viewed as a punishment for some night of passion. Having a family is a choice that needs planning, social support, and lots of money.

With the advent of easily accessible birth control comes promiscuity. Engaging in sexual activities is a fun past time. It's not all about romance, marriage and children anymore. A good chunk of those who opt for abortion, do so due to failed birth control.



my solution is not to "never abort, pay the consequences. " in fact I don't really offered a solution
I was just responding about why it is illogical to ask pro-lifers to adopt all would be aborted babies

the fact that pregnant women carry the baby for 9 months is not an argument
it is fact and it is just how the biology of our bodies work
no one decided that pregnancies should last 9 months, it just is
and by offering abortions to seemingly healthy pregnancies you are not making right any wrong

I have not mentioned any clinical problems such as "Down Syndrome, Spina Bifida, and other maladies"
I was mainly talking about healthy pregnancies with healthy babies from consensual sex on which the mother just decides that she does not wan't the baby

I was not saying mothers should take care of their babies as a form of punishment
just saying they should be responsible for their actions and the consequences thereof

lastly, about failed birth control. Everyone capable to use birth control understands they are not 100% effective 100% of the time. When they had sex, they knew the risk
it was not a random misfortune
which boils down, again, to being responsible with your actions


Originally posted by windword

I also am a pragmatist. I am pro-choice. I see nothing immoral in opting for an abortion, under the present mainstream guidelines, up until 20-22 weeks, and with exception for emergency issues of the health of the mother.

I agree with the medical emergency part
however I would move the deadline down to at least 15 weeks
and also put in place a system that would prevent abortion to be used as another form of birth control



Originally posted by windword
We don't live in a utopia. Life is full of crudeness. Menastration is crude! Tampax and sanitary napkins are crude! Toilet paper is crude! Senility and Osteoporsis are crude!

Is the pro-choice alternative the perfect solution? More choice is always a better solution. We need more choices, better birth control, male birth control!

Soon abortion will be a moot argument, as science moves forward and finds medical solutions for these issues, leaving us and our discussion behind. The deeper and bigger problems of human condition will continue to persist and plague us though.



I'm glad you mention scientific development
hopefully one day abortions will only be considered for medical emergencies
because all pregnancies will be planned pregnancies
but we will still have problems with pro-choice extremists that will argue that
no matter when or where if the mother wants to abort it should be so because
it is her body and her choice



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


No one is forcing anyone to anything
the only "forcing" I see here is the pro-choice side forcing the government to provide a medical procedure
if you get pregnant and there are no abortion clinics, no one is forcing you to have the baby.
the services are just not available
therefore this problem is not about rights and choice
no one is taking a right or an ability to choose from women by just not providing a service

I agree that the alternative back alley abortions are very dangerous and should be avoided at all cost
however, I think you are stretching it by saying that not making aborting widely available is the same
as forcing women to have children



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 





my solution is not to "never abort, pay the consequences. " in fact I don't really offered a solution I was just responding about why it is illogical to ask pro-lifers to adopt all would be aborted babies the fact that pregnant women carry the baby for 9 months is not an argument it is fact and it is just how the biology of our bodies work no one decided that pregnancies should last 9 months,


But, that is a tactic that is employed to offer another "choice" besides aborting an unwanted pregnancy. Adoption.


it just is and by offering abortions to seemingly healthy pregnancies you are not making right any wrong.


There is no right or wrong here, only a choice NOT to carry a pregnancy.



I have not mentioned any clinical problems such as "Down Syndrome, Spina Bifida, and other maladies" I was mainly talking about healthy pregnancies with healthy babies from consensual sex on which the mother just decides that she does not wan't the baby


There are lots of reasons why a woman may choose abortion. It isn't your place to qualify who deserves the service and who doesn't.

Consensual sex is not consent to become a parent. Accidents happen.


I was not saying mothers should take care of their babies as a form of punishment just saying they should be responsible for their actions and the consequences thereof


Abortion sometimes is the most responsible choice, and having an abortion is bearing the consequences. As long as there are safe methods to end a pregnancy, there is no reason why those methods shouldn't be available to all women.


lastly, about failed birth control. Everyone capable to use birth control understands they are not 100% effective 100% of the time. When they had sex, they knew the risk it was not a random misfortune which boils down, again, to being responsible with your actions


Biology isn't sacred or holy and it doesn't trump self determination. Pregnancy occurring due to failed birth control is not consent to parenthood. A woman has every right to enjoy a sexual experience without having to give birth as a result. Having a child doesn't equate responsibility. Abortion is not an immoral option, sometimes it is the better solution.


edit on 11-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword

But, that is a tactic that is employed to offer another "choice" besides aborting an unwanted pregnancy. Adoption.

Yes but my original response was to clarify that just because pro-lifers don't adopt would be aborted babies
it does not make pro-lifers arguments hypocritical


Originally posted by windword
There is no right or wrong here, only a choice NOT to carry a pregnancy.

by killing a life
therefore
it is not only about choice or no choice


Originally posted by windword
There are lots of reasons why a woman may choose abortion. It isn't your place to qualify who deserves the service and who doesn't.

Consensual sex is not consent to become a parent. Accidents happen.

I can reverse your statement very easily
what qualifies you to choose that everyone deserves one?


Originally posted by windword
Abortion sometimes is the most responsible choice, and having an abortion is bearing the consequences. As long as there are safe methods to end a pregnancy, there is no reason why those methods shouldn't be available to all women.

Having an abortion is, like the name itself implies, aborting a consequence
This is not facing a consequence by any means
the consequence is pregnancy, which is being getting rid of


Originally posted by windword
Biology isn't sacred or holy and it doesn't trump self determination. Pregnancy occurring due to failed birth control is not consent to parenthood. A woman has every right to enjoy a sexual experience without having to give birth as a result. Having a child doesn't equate responsibility. Abortion is not an immoral option, sometimes it is the better solution.

enjoying sex without care is not really a legal or human right
I hope everyone enjoys sex, but you can't really call it a right
you say abortion is sometimes the better solution, which means you agree sometimes it is not the best solution
then wouldn't a system to prevent abortions when the better solution is not abortion be needed?

If abortion is immoral or not, that's up to each of us to decide
there is not one truth about this
morality is always changing and reflective of social and cultural believes
yet abortion is with no doubt ending a human life

Abortion is not just about choice or no choice, it is also about ending a life. It is not just about being able to have sex when you want, it is also about responsibility.
All aspects of abortion should be considered including the social and cultural impact.
Being for abortion just for an idealistic belief on free will is, in my opinion, shortsighted and dangerous

This thread seems to have died so this will be my last post
if you reply to this post I will carefully read it but I wont reply back
thank you bye bye






top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join