Abortion; Why?

I am a cute little huggable monster. My point was that the education level of someone or how well they expressed themselves doesn't matter because to you one can not value life and be pro-choice at the same time.

Is that you objective opinion?

Mesmerized, I respect your passion and enthusiasm on this issue, but the kind of posts that you've been writing in this thread are not arguments, they are emotional appeals. You make a series of declarative statements, but you provide little to no support, either through providing facts or evidence, or through the use of reason and logic, to support your points. With these kinds of posts, you won't persuade anyone who isn't already on your side of the wisdom of your point of view. Conclusions are not arguments. Opinions without evidence do not effectively persuade. I hope you'll give this some thought the next time you wade into this topic, because I think you might be more successful in reaching your goals if you focus less on emotion. I wish you the best of luck as you seek to inspire others to have respect for life.

I'm not interested in emotion as I am in logic and common sense. I attempted to post images of a factual nature in regards to the horrors of abortion but they were removed.

If you wish to continue your argument, I suggest you pm me and save this liberal slanted message board for it's destructive uses.

I am with Mesmerized here. I would personally never kill a child even if he is 2 hours old. And I am for death penalty for the ones who deserve it. I however do not believe in the restrictions of choice. There will always be people who will not want their children. No education can be successful enough to prevent this. The respect for the dignity of the child comes here to the question how the child can be protected from a parent who would hurt him before or after birth. And this is a system rather than a human failure, as when an unwanted child is transferred from parents who do not want him to a system which does not want him - there is not much difference. Everything is reduced to chance, some children will stay alive, some among them will have the luck to meet good people. And still Mesmerized is right, if you don't get born, you have a zero chance.

Thank God someone is. Is Hollywood synonymous with abortion fanatics?
Anyone who wants to can simply pm me their problems with the subject. Why risk one's account on people like AKA23 and Deadlite who prefer death for an unborn child?

Thank you.

There is no need to give this any further thought. The fact that you support the slaughtering of unborn children does not impress me. I suggest you give some thought to your lack of concern to the unborn.

Thomas Moore

maternal fetal medicine specialist

"You may be able to hear -- and see -- your baby's heart beat for the first time when you're about 8 weeks pregnant if you have an early ultrasound exam. (The baby's heart starts to beat at around 6 weeks.)"

http://www.babycenter.com/404_when-c...at_10349811.bc

Week 5: The embryonic period begins

"The fifth week of pregnancy, or the third week after conception, marks the beginning of the embryonic period. This is when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

This post is yet another example of huge flaws in your method of argument that you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge. If you read my posts carefully, I've actually never said that I was pro-choice. I'm actually quite sympathetic to supporting restrictions on abortion. What I've done is question whether banning abortion would accomplish the goal of actually reducing abortions, based on statistics I've read that a ban would not reduce the practice. I think you would be better off if you didn't make assumptions about what people believe or don't believe, or suggest that people that you don't know don't have concern for the unborn. This certainly isn't true for me, and it might not be true for others as well. Since you can't possibly know whether what you are saying is true, making these claims isn't appropriate. My original post was seeking to help you out, since I respect what you are trying to do, but I can see that my suggestions have fallen on deaf ears. I do hope they are helpful for those who do wish to have a productive conversation on this topic.

I'm glad to know that. I would ask that you go a step further and not vote for politicians who support abortion.

It is already illegal to kill people and those convicted would face the death penalty or life in prison. Is this not a deterrent? If abortion is outlawed, it would be treated as any murder. Moreover, it would send a clear message that abortion is a major human-rights violation.

I've sat here and read a lot of your posts, and I have this to say, the entire point to having a debate is between two mature parties. Obviously, you feel strongly against the idea of abortion, which is fine, but insulting, belittling, or speaking condescendingly to the ideas of others members does not benefit your cause and does not make you look passionate about the agenda, it makes you look like a jerk.

States passed 205 abortion restrictions in three years. That’s totally unprecedented.

• This comparison comes from the Guttmacher Institute, which finds that states passed 205 abortion restrictions between 2011 and 2013, more than the 189 laws passed between 2001 and 2010. Nearly half of the laws - 45 percent - fell into three categories: targeted regulations of abortion providers, bans on abortions after 20 weeks and restrictions on medical abortions. "States enacted 93 measures in these four categories from 2011 through 2013, compared with 22 during the previous decade," the Guttmacher analysis finds."
  
  More:
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...unprecedented/
  

The debate is one of the most positive things in the world. Worst things happen in silent environments. No matter what sides everyone here takes, or what arguments he uses - speaking out prevents crimes. So I am seriously considering everyone from this thread a SuperHero

What's really positive are the many restrictions being placed on abortion. It won't be long before it is outlawed.

"States passed 205 abortion restrictions in three years. That’s totally unprecedented."

"This comparison comes from the Guttmacher Institute, which finds that states passed 205 abortion restrictions between 2011 and 2013, more than the 189 laws passed between 2001 and 2010. Nearly half of the laws - 45 percent - fell into three categories: targeted regulations of abortion providers, bans on abortions after 20 weeks and restrictions on medical abortions. "States enacted 93 measures in these four categories from 2011 through 2013, compared with 22 during the previous decade," the Guttmacher analysis finds.

"What made 2010 such a boom year for abortion restrictions? It's hard to pinpoint a particular reason, but a few factors do stand out. First, Republicans took control of lots of state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections, allowing them to pass more restrictions than was politically feasible in the past. The Affordable Care Act also ignited a fight over abortion policy, particularly whether federal funds would help pay for abortions (when Americans used their tax subsidies to purchase health insurance coverage). That fight spilled over to state legislatures - the ones that Republicans had recently come to control - and many passed laws restricting insurance coverage of abortion.


"Lastly, the focus on late-term abortion, with the 20-week abortion bans, likely played a role, too. As the Guttmacher Institute reports, those bans proliferated quickly, after Nebraska passed the first such law back in 2010. While the majority of Americans do support legal abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy, support for abortion rights falls significantly when you get into second and third trimester terminations. That drop-off in public support could have laid the groundwork for the success of the late-term restrictions."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...unprecedented/

I'm pretty curious as to what you think that contributes to the debate. As far as I can tell, singling out politicians who say dumb things (which you can always find, on every side of every debate) is just a way to avoid confronting the actual issue.

It's a question I'd like to hear all politicians answer. Don't look at the video as singling out, look at it as a broader scope of questions to ask people who, in Jim Buchy's case, blindly follow an agenda they clearly no nothing about. He's not the only person who thinks this way.

Okay, and then what? All you'd have established is that Jim Buchy is blindly following an agenda. What you won't have established is anything at all about the validity of the pro-life position. Just as it doesn't invalidate the pro-choice position when a pro-choice politician fails to answer a question about their beliefs.

Discrediting people is not the same thing as discrediting ideas.

The point is he and people like him, have no idea. People in POWER that have the possibility to change things for better or worse are doing so without the required knowledge, or the care to know the required knowledge. A person who is on the side of one issue, is not going to post things that make their argument look bad, that's your job.

I fail to see, how you fail to see that this is an issue. You don't think people (on both sides) blindly following an agenda is a problem? Instead you IGNORE that simply because I'm on the other side of YOUR agenda. You are trying to discredit the post simply because it doesn't fall in line with your beliefs.

I think it contributes a lot to the debate and I'm not trying to hide from confronting the issue at all. One look at your initial post:

Tells me you're completely ignorant to the issue.

I really don't wish to start a "fight" or get into a debate on a MOVIE FORUM message board, it just causes tension between people.

My stance is Pro-Choice and I'll leave it at that.