I'm against abortion myself, but....

[DallasApple]

Do they want abortions to be allowed, or not?

I think they dont want them to be "allowed" but they arent going to "actively" do anything to stop it.Like bumper stickers that say "your still a mommy if you have an abortion..just a mommy of a dead baby"...

Blessings

Dallas

 

[SoyLeche]

I think they dont want them to be "allowed" but they arent going to "actively" do anything to stop it.Like bumper stickers that say "your still a mommy if you have an abortion..just a mommy of a dead baby"...

Blessings

Dallas

Then they are inactive 'anti-allow's. If it comes up for a vote, and they vote to allow, though, they are 'pro-allow'.

It's very simple. You ask someone "do you think abortions should be allowed". If they answer "yes", they are "pro-allow". If they answer "no, they are "anti-allow".

 

[Magic Man]

Do they want abortions to be allowed, or not?

They don't want abortions to happen.

 

[Magic Man]

Then they are inactive 'anti-allow's. If it comes up for a vote, and they vote to allow, though, they are 'pro-allow'.

It's very simple. You ask someone "do you think abortions should be allowed". If they answer "yes", they are "pro-allow". If they answer "no, they are "anti-allow".

What if the answer is "sometimes"?

 

[DallasApple]

Hmm...inactive anti allows..New lables ...

They are "active pro allows" though if they use thier vote to allow it..Not simply "pro allows" with zero activivety involved.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[SoyLeche]

They don't want abortions to happen.

Do they want them to be allowed? Whether or not the want abortions to happen is irrelevant.

 

[SoyLeche]

Hmm...inactive anti allows..New lables ...

They are "active pro allows" though if they use thier vote to allow it..Not simply "pro allows" with zero activivety involved.

Blessings

Dallas

The other qualifiers are unnecessary. I only added it for your benefit.

 

[SoyLeche]

What if the answer is "sometimes"?

That may get sticky. If it is "only if one or the other will most likely die anyway", then I wouldnt' be opposed to that person labeling themselves "anti-allow". Most other "sometimes" people would be "pro-allow".

 

[Draka]

I don't quite agree with the idea that you are either pro-choice or pro-life and that's it. You can be anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time, I believe that is pretty well known. My thing is, that you can be legally pro-choice up to a certain point and then past that point in the pregnancy be firmly against having the choice of abortion. If you hold to the idea of when a fetus has reached the point in their development that they could survive outside of the mother then abortion should not be allowed are you still pro-choice or are you suddenly pro-life at that point?

I don't mean to make this a debate about when life is life or anything like that, but just want to point out that a lot of pro-choicers still have standards when it comes to the terms of abortions.

 

[DallasApple]

I don't quite agree with the idea that you are either pro-choice or pro-life and that's it. You can be anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time, I believe that is pretty well known. My thing is, that you can be legally pro-choice up to a certain point and then past that point in the pregnancy be firmly against having the choice of abortion. If you hold to the idea of when a fetus has reached the point in their development that they could survive outside of the mother then abortion should not be allowed are you still pro-choice or are you suddenly pro-life at that point?

I don't mean to make this a debate about when life is life or anything like that, but just want to point out that a lot of pro-choicers still have standards when it comes to the terms of abortions.

This is how I feel about it..I think they "allow" abortions far too late into pregnancies.Even if the baby may not survive outside of the womb.

Love

Dallas

 

[Draka]

This is how I feel about it..I think they "allow" abortions far too late into pregnancies.Even if the baby may not survive outside of the womb.

Love

Dallas

Yeah, I tried to be general there. I have my own ideas and they are a little earlier, but I don't want to make this an argument over when life is life and so on. Those get ugly. But I think that the point that a fetus is viable outside of the womb is a point in the pregnancy that even most pro-choicers can agree is a bit beyond what is acceptable for an abortion.

 

[Scott1]

I don't quite agree with the idea that you are either pro-choice or pro-life and that's it. You can be anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time, I believe that is pretty well known.

That it is common, I agree with you there.... but that's the point of the thread (I think) that some of us find this concept a bit absurd.... seems to me personally that it's an "either-or" kinda deal.

For example:

• I believe hunting for sport is evil..... unless you are really, really bored.
• I believe it is important to always tell the truth..... that's why I'm President of the United States.

See what confuses me?

Does it really just boil down to the "when does life start" question?

Thanks Draka
S

 

[Draka]

That it is common, I agree with you there.... but that's the point of the thread (I think) that some of us find this concept a bit absurd.... seems to me personally that it's an "either-or" kinda deal.

For example:

• I believe hunting for sport is evil..... unless you are really, really bored.
• I believe it is important to always tell the truth..... that's why I'm President of the United States.

See what confuses me?

Does it really just boil down to the "when does life start" question?

Thanks Draka
S

Put it this way, one says they are personally anti-abortion, yet legally pro-choice because even though they might not personally approve of the idea of abortion, and wouldn't dream of doing it themselves, and may not even like the idea of someone they know doing it, we can accept that we are not in the minds and lives of those who are making that decision. While I may not be able to think of a situation that may cause me to consider such a choice I realize that there may be situations out there that will bring another woman to that decision. I may not like it, but I realize that I don't have a right to judge her.

You may think the idea of driving a gas-guzzling air polluting SUV is absolutely revolting and you wish no one would do it, but you realize that there might be someone out there that may, for some reason unbeknownst to you, may have a great need for that SUV. So you may shake your head and wish they didn't have one, but you realize it isn't your place to restrict them from buying one because you don't know their life or need. I hate to boil this down to a car thing, but just trying to make a point.

 

[Scott1]

I hate to boil this down to a car thing, but just trying to make a point.

Hehe.... I get ya... I still can't see eye to eye with you on it... but I think I understand the point you are making.

 

[Tau]

I am starting to get upset with this line of thought. Too many people say they are pro life when they really are not. They always use the line, "I am personally against it, but I can't tell others what to do" or something to that effect. If you support other womens right to choose to have an abortion or not, YOU'RE PRO CHOICE, regardless of how you presonally feel. Retorts?

I agree with your logic in the sense it depends on whether they believe Pro Choice is a more important ideology than Pro Life.

Pro Choice is a misnomer, the fetus/unborn human is not offered the choice and it is the fetus/unborn human that is the potential subject for termination...logically speaking, in my view anyway.

 

[Evelyn]

Put it this way, one says they are personally anti-abortion, yet legally pro-choice because even though they might not personally approve of the idea of abortion, and wouldn't dream of doing it themselves, and may not even like the idea of someone they know doing it, we can accept that we are not in the minds and lives of those who are making that decision. While I may not be able to think of a situation that may cause me to consider such a choice I realize that there may be stituations out there that will bring another woman to that decision. I may not like it, but I realize that I don't have a right to judge her.

The thing is that we all directly or indirectly impose our morals on others. A cannibalistic man can feel judged. A rapist can feel judged. A pedophile feels judged. A drunk driver can feel judged. List goes on and on…

And what do we do? We (society as a whole) make it clear that we won’t tolerate such behavior. Yet, most people hardly lose sleep over “judging” such people.

We don’t allow those people to make such decisions do we?

 

[Alceste]

But they are. That's the thing. YOu eitehr are or you aren't . Even if MOST of the time they don't want abortion, that one time would make them pro choice.

I'm fine with that distinction. So by this model people fall into one of two categories: You are either "pro-choice" or you would kill your wife (or yourself) to save your unborn child. Like, rather than taking a morning after pill to save your wife (or yourself) and adopting an unwanted child and raising it together.

I reckon if things were really so simple it would be a very short debate.

 

[DallasApple]

Thats another thought I have on the "a little like Hitler" comment on the concept of "unwanted" children..What about all the "unwanted" children in orphanges and foster care? "Damaged" children or "older troubled children" ..You get all these people saying they would "adopt" the infant to people who are pro-choice ..Now should we compare them to "Hilter" or how about someone shopping for a "pet" being that they will pick and chose age,race gender or "reject" a child that has physical or emotional problems.Someone who waits for years to "get' a perfect fat little white baby?.

I think some of the ones that say off the cuff they would adopt need to put thier money where thier mouth is and start adopting now..Being that there are many "unwanted" children already here wanting and needing a family.People who claim to care so much about "saving lives" need to remember that sure that havign the child versus abortion gives the child "life".But a life of what?When do you start to consider the "quality" of that childs life after birth?What about "saving the lives" of children that are here already?

Blessings

Dallas

 

[+Xausted]

This is how I feel about it..I think they "allow" abortions far too late into pregnancies.Even if the baby may not survive outside of the womb.

Love

Dallas

until you have ever been in that situation can you judge? i dont know if you have, so sotty if that is the caes, but it isnt as clear cut
meant with love of course

 

[Alceste]

Thats another thought I have on the "a little like Hitler" comment on the concept of "unwanted" children..What about all the "unwanted" children in orphanges and foster care? "Damaged" children or "older troubled children" ..You get all these people saying they would "adopt" the infant to people who are pro-choice ..Now should we compare them to "Hilter" or how about someone shopping for a "pet" being that they will pick and chose age,race gender or "reject" a child that has physical or emotional problems.Someone who waits for years to "get' a perfect fat little white baby?.

I think some of the ones that say off the cuff they would adopt need to put thier money where thier mouth is and start adopting now..Being that there are many "unwanted" children already here wanting and needing a family.People who claim to care so much about "saving lives" need to remember that sure that havign the child versus abortion gives the child "life".But a life of what?When do you start to consider the "quality" of that childs life after birth?What about "saving the lives" of children that are here already?

Blessings

Dallas

Dang I can't frubal you again either. Fascists!