Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Why Are People Pro-Choice?
74 Answers
What do they believe and why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AlaunaBlackwood. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Spicey:
"In his new book, Ryan says..."
I can't really take anyone seriously if they're reporting controversial stuff that they are also writing in a book that they're selling. Also, frankly, I can't take anyone seriously who suggests that any woman would both make up allegations like this *and* go public with them when the consequence was pretty obvious: even if she were believed she would be harassed severely, and she's already been forced to move house twice.
No. I don't doubt that the allegations were co-opted to an extent by people who had a vested interest in seeing Kavanaugh's nomination resisted. But any suggestion that Blasey Ford was in on that agenda is not remotely worth taking seriously.
"In his new book, Ryan says..."
I can't really take anyone seriously if they're reporting controversial stuff that they are also writing in a book that they're selling. Also, frankly, I can't take anyone seriously who suggests that any woman would both make up allegations like this *and* go public with them when the consequence was pretty obvious: even if she were believed she would be harassed severely, and she's already been forced to move house twice.
No. I don't doubt that the allegations were co-opted to an extent by people who had a vested interest in seeing Kavanaugh's nomination resisted. But any suggestion that Blasey Ford was in on that agenda is not remotely worth taking seriously.
VE Most are done by tablet. First a hormone suppressant, then a couple of days later, something that breaks down the foetal matter.
There are surgical procedures as alternatives. Suction pumps within the first 15 weeks, and as Theland said forceps 15+. I don't know how the procedure goes, whether it's as grim as Theland says, I doubt.
There are surgical procedures as alternatives. Suction pumps within the first 15 weeks, and as Theland said forceps 15+. I don't know how the procedure goes, whether it's as grim as Theland says, I doubt.
It's part of the ritual to crush each limb in turn to ensure that the maximum pain is caused. Then the still-living fetus is slowly lowered into a vat of boiling oil, its screams piercing the air. The crisp, lightly-battered flesh is considered a delicacy in some particularly left-leaning states.
Obviously that's made up. But I shouldn't be surprised to see it enter the pantheon of "pro-life"* propaganda before too long.
*A glorious piece of marketing, considering that once the baby is born, most pro-life activists stop giving a toss about either mother or child. They support them to give birth but that's it.
Obviously that's made up. But I shouldn't be surprised to see it enter the pantheon of "pro-life"* propaganda before too long.
*A glorious piece of marketing, considering that once the baby is born, most pro-life activists stop giving a toss about either mother or child. They support them to give birth but that's it.
It depends what hospital are carrying out the procedure. I had an 'evacuation' meaning my baby had died but still remained intact in the womb. I was put under general anesthetic and it was removed, pretty much the same way many abortions are carried out.
Like has been mentioned here many times the cut of point in the UK is 24 weeks unless there is a severe risk to mother or baby.
They would not be crushing a baby's skull and vacuuming out the remains as Theland eloquently puts it!
If pregnancy is in the early stages, and they most likely are, they can be given pills that will encourage a miscarriage and/or labour.
Like has been mentioned here many times the cut of point in the UK is 24 weeks unless there is a severe risk to mother or baby.
They would not be crushing a baby's skull and vacuuming out the remains as Theland eloquently puts it!
If pregnancy is in the early stages, and they most likely are, they can be given pills that will encourage a miscarriage and/or labour.
I understand the point of your demagogic post of 00:55, Jim.
It wasn't a serious response to my point about the moral iussue of killing incubated infants, was it?
As for your "most pro-life activists stop giving a toss about either mother or child", I don't think you really believe that. It's both an insulting remark, but not remotely plausible, don't you think?
I'm not a Christian or a " pro-life activist". But I certainly give a toss about children being raised by loving parents, and the dangers to children first, but the wider society second, when the Jims have conspired successfully to destroy the traditional arrangements.
It wasn't a serious response to my point about the moral iussue of killing incubated infants, was it?
As for your "most pro-life activists stop giving a toss about either mother or child", I don't think you really believe that. It's both an insulting remark, but not remotely plausible, don't you think?
I'm not a Christian or a " pro-life activist". But I certainly give a toss about children being raised by loving parents, and the dangers to children first, but the wider society second, when the Jims have conspired successfully to destroy the traditional arrangements.
Jim does have a point, a lot of people seem to be pro-birth more than pro-life, without apparently too much regard for what happens afterwards. We really don't need any more children in care. What happens to those whose mother knows she is unwilling or unable to care for them. Certainly, a few may change their mind by the time they give birth- but not everyone will.
vetuste_ennemi> The nearest thing to a correct formulation of the abortion issue is Ellipsis' post.
Thanks, v_e. FWIW I am in agreement with pretty much everything you've written on this thread so far. The issue is where one sees life beginning.
If someone "pro life" sees life beginning at conception, then that person would see any abortion as the deliberate taking of an innocent life, i.e. tantamount to murder. That's quite an extreme position.
At the other extreme, someone who who was "pro choice" and who saw life beginning at birth would be prepared to offer the choice of abortion at any point during a pregnancy, even once the baby/foetus (trying to avoid biased language there) was viable.
Personally, I think the 1967 Abortion Act is neither pro life nor pro choice and strikes a delicate balance between the two positions. However, I do believe it's widely abused and this abuse is widely tolerated.
Thanks, v_e. FWIW I am in agreement with pretty much everything you've written on this thread so far. The issue is where one sees life beginning.
If someone "pro life" sees life beginning at conception, then that person would see any abortion as the deliberate taking of an innocent life, i.e. tantamount to murder. That's quite an extreme position.
At the other extreme, someone who who was "pro choice" and who saw life beginning at birth would be prepared to offer the choice of abortion at any point during a pregnancy, even once the baby/foetus (trying to avoid biased language there) was viable.
Personally, I think the 1967 Abortion Act is neither pro life nor pro choice and strikes a delicate balance between the two positions. However, I do believe it's widely abused and this abuse is widely tolerated.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.