Democrats have screwed up priorities

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Democrats have screwed up priorities
150
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 11:30pm

i dont get it.

I was reading today about Obama's short term agenda and three things that came up were

1) stop plans to drill for oil in environmentally fragile areas
2) stop the ban on funding of abortion aid in other countries
3) stop ban on stem cell creation and subsequent destroying for research purposes.

WHAT??????

why is the environment and/or animals more important that unborn babies?

many times the liberal agenda is more for the rights of everything EXCEPT unborn kid, eg: baby animals, people on death row, gay rights, etc.

I am not against the rights of those i just listed, i would just include unborn children too, right?? it seems like strange priorities, or hypocritical.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Sun, 11-16-2008 - 9:46am

>>I guess by the same token, I could say if you support war you WANT innocent foreign children to die?<<

Not even remotely similar.

The goal of war is to prevent/avoid the killing of innocent civilians. The goal of an abortion is specifically and intentionally to kill an innocent life.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Sun, 11-16-2008 - 9:50am

I don't know what I would personally do in that situation.

But that doesn't negate the fact that if I chose an abortion-I would be choosing to kill an innocent victim of the crime.

I might choose to put my needs first and kill the innocent life or I might not.

What I would do is really irrelevant. If you support my right to choose then you are supporting my right to kill an innocent life/baby/fetus/ whatever you may wish to refer to it as.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-16-2008 - 11:12am
And if the mother's life is at risk do you support the choice then? Which life is more important to save then? The innocent baby or the mother in whose body the baby resides? IF you HAVE to make a choice who wins that one?
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Sun, 11-16-2008 - 11:19am

<>


but it is relevant, because with without people who believe that you have a right to make that decision, you wouldnt have the choice to "put your needs" first.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 11-16-2008 - 12:01pm

<>


If that's the goal of war, it has never really come

 


 


I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Sun, 11-16-2008 - 12:03pm

That's not the argument in this case.

I merely stated that it was untrue to say that you claim to be pro-choice but don't support the killing of babies.

You can't be one and not the other. I wasn't passing any moral judgment or making any claims about what I might do.

I am pro-choice. I support allowing others to choose to kill their unborn babies.

I completely "get" the viewpoint of others who are not pro-choice. They believe the unborn have the same rights of the already born and thus believe abortion in murder.

The question remains at what point does life begin. I can't help wonder if those erring on the side of caution probably are probably right. I mean it's not like a rape victim has no options so long as we have people lining up to adopt. And when the life of the mother is involved....again, you're chosing to do what's best for you and not the unborn life but that choice tends to be more understandable. But we all know that in reality the millions of abortions each are are not due to rape or life of the mother considerations now don't we?

Abortion is the easy way out. You get to play and you don't have to pay. (excluding those rare cases of rape or life of the mother)




Edited 11/16/2008 12:05 pm ET by delphine88
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-16-2008 - 12:19pm

Given the argument that you have posted - I followed it through several posts - I was curious as to how you would answer the question. I guess that curiosity will have to go unanswered as you don't seem to be willing to answer the question.

I agree that part of the debate is the point at which we can say human life begins and that is why I object to calling abortion the 'killing of babies' to term a fetus of less than 20 weeks a baby is not exactly accurate. The fetus is not a baby until it is born. Under 20 weeks it is not really a viable life outside the uterus and therefore I don't consider it a 'baby' at that point. I think some would like to term it a baby the moment the egg and sperm meet, which would disallow the day after pill. Personally I think that is just ridiculous.

I think terming abortion 'baby killing' is intentionally inflammatory and not allowing for the health of the mother is saying that the unborn life is more important that the womb in which it resides.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2008
Sun, 11-16-2008 - 3:03pm

Abortion is the easy way out. You get to play and you don't have to pay. (excluding those rare cases of rape or life of the mother)


Tell that to the women who have to abort a very wanted pregnancy for fetal abnormalities that make it inconsistent with life. I think that is a heartless statement that completely minimizes the tragic and difficult decision of abortion.


pregnancy Photobucket Photobucket
BARACKED2.jpg picture by irishnutmeg
Phot
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Sun, 11-16-2008 - 5:26pm

If it's inconsistent with life it wouldn't survive. The statement makes no sense. Yes, I'm sure it's hard to have to abort a child who will be born less than perfect and it's even harder not to.

But it is what it is. And let's face it--the percentage of abortions performed for those reasons are virtually null when compared to those done for convenience sake.

You have the statistics on that one? I'd bet if you added all three cases together; life of mom, deformed fetus, result of rape it would amount to less than 1 percent of all abortions performed annually.

Edited to add: The most up-to-date statistics I could find on-line indicate the percentage of abortions performed due to rape/incest is 1%, fetal abnormalities 1% and health considerations of the mother which could mean anything--to include having a baby will stress me out, 3%.

Regardless of the reasons, there is no denying that abortion is the killing of a living but unborn human being. Like I said, I am pro-choice.




Edited 11/16/2008 5:38 pm ET by delphine88
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2008
Sun, 11-16-2008 - 5:48pm

Regardless of the reasons, there is no denying that abortion is the killing of a living but unborn human being. Like I said, I am pro-choice.


So now you aren't saying abortion is the killing of a baby? Great, I can agree with that.


pregnancy Photobucket Photobucket
BARACKED2.jpg picture by irishnutmeg
Phot

Pages