Relevant article that describes my views somewhat (although much of the site is bonkers IMO) http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/rescue.htm
How about, “I used to be anti-abortion, and point to the extremists as why I want nothing to do with that crowd anymore.”?
Now, I’m not against extremism per se. There are of course things worth killing for. But if you’re killing for your belief in the sanctity of human life, well, eventually the cognitive dissonance became too much for me.
I think they should be classifed as terrorists and sent to Guantamo.
Unless you were talking only about the last bit :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I’m for free speech, even if it’s speech I don’t like. I support the right to abortion, although I hope for a day when they will no longer be needed.
I had an abortion in my teens. Do I regret it? No. I wish the pregnancy hadn’t happend so that I was not in the situation I was in. Under the same circumstances I would make the same choice. It really, really irritates me to hear women who have had abortions crusade against it: “I got mine when I needed it, but because I’ve (changed my mind, found God, whatever) I don’t want that option to be available to you”. Go to hell, you scanctimonious bitch.
If, while I was going for the procedure, someone had attempted to lay hands on me they would not have been touching anyone for a while. I would have done my dead level best to break every finger that touched me.
Bombing clinics and assasinnating doctors are acts of terrorism plain and simply and the anti-abortionists that employ them or give aid to those that do deserve to be treated the same way Al Quaida’s top operatives were. I think Seal Team Six should have been sent after Eric Rudolph and have no problems with using military muscle on U.S. soil to handle domestic terrorists. Many of the other acts should be handled as if they were criminal acts or civil damage matters with any other type of business. Far too often the anti-abortion movement is handled with pardon the expression kid-gloves. If someone where protesting outside my shop, insulting customers, and trying to block people from going inside, you better bet I’m taking every penny they’ve got in a law suit. Somebody needs to strip the anti-abortion movement of their resources. Maybe if they actually have to worry about feeding and housing their families they’ll understand the position women with an inconvenient pregnancy face.
As a Christian, I feel a duty to condemn any and all hateful behavior. However, those opposed to abortion do have their right to free speech. Carrying a sign should be allowed. Blocking a sidewalk is wrong. Jesus never raised his hand against another man. How can I shoot a doctor in his name?
I think if they want to picket and hand out fliers and chant, they should fork over $100 an hour, per person, for the privledge to stand there and do so AND their names will be put on a mandatory adoption list to adopt a baby of a woman who cannot afford to raise it. They will have home inspections and the like every 3 months for 18 years.
They attend the f’n party, but they don’t want to do the work.
I think they should be banned from at least three blocks from the clinics for safety reasons. I think they are horrible people who lie and attempt to intimidate women when they are in a vulnerable state.
By the way, “God loves your baby”? Well then he’ll welcome that little fella with open arms and the *child *will never be forced to choose and possibly end up in Hell. Win-win!
You LIKE abortion, or you like the legality and availability of abortion? Liking abortion seems akin to liking tonsillectomies or root canals. Or is there some particular aspect of abortion you find likable?
Posters are discussing murdering abortion doctors as if this is a day to day occurrence.
When was the last murder of an abortion provider? A quick Google search , if correct, says it was over two years ago, after a period of 11 years with no murders. Or, another way of saying it is that there was only one such murder in the last 13 years.
Of course that’s one too many. But it’s a small number compared to the number of people killed by dictators or terrorists or street criminals. For those who are truly interested in protecting the innocent there are bigger fish to fry.
Some of us don’t believe ANYONE should end up in Gitmo, honeybunches. Well, unless they try to shake your hand.
Well, we know Ken wasn’t the father, since he doesn’t have any parts.
Can you please substantiate this assertion that some of these protestors make those claims? You know…that all women, without exception, regret abortion? And that not a single woman ever regrets giving a child up for adoption?
I’ve seen you toss such accusations around a lot, but I have yet to see anyone actually make such a claim… and I say this based on many years of following the pro-life community. I hope you won’t begrudge me a measure of skepticism with regard to these two assertions.
I actually heard that claim from a protestor’s lips.
All anti-abortion types should read the book The Girls Who Went Away. The tales of women who were forced to give up their babies before legal abortion and who suffered horribly. If there were no other reason to be pro-legal abortion, it’s the la-la land that the anti-aborts make adoption out to be.
I think the term “pro-life” should be outlawed. It’s ridiculous and misleading. I’m “pro-life” - I think life is a good thing. But I’m also “pro-choice” because in some cases abortion, carried out in a timely and humane way, is a much better choice than a life of misery.
Why can’t these hypocrites call themselves “anti-abortion” instead?
Why do you criticize pro-lifers for not using the term “anti-abortion” when you yourself shy away from using the logical flip side term “Pro-abortion” to describe your support for allowing abortions?
The careful public relations-motivated euphemisms from abortion advocacy groups about “choice” instead of “abortion” is just as hypocritical and misleading as pro-lifers describing themselves as such.
Looking at things objectively, of course “life” and “choice” are valued by the majority of people on both sides of this debate (though there are extremists on both sides). My own policy is to refer to both groups as they wish to be called (‘pro-life/pro-choice’) since that seems the most fair and respectful way to handle it. But, sure, I would embrace calling myself “anti-abortion” if abortion advocates want to call themselves “pro-abortion”.
The fact that very few abortion advocates do use the term “pro-abortion” for themselves is quite interesting, I think. Anyone who finds abortion distasteful enough that they dislike being thought of as “pro-abortion” really should reflect on why that is so, and maybe they could understand at least where pro-lifers are coming from.
I’ve never met an NRA supporter who insisted that they “weren’t pro-gun, just in favor of the right to choose to have a gun”. I doubt that most people who are in favor of legalizing marijuana would be offended to be called “pro-marijuana”. In a way, I do respect people who are honest with themselves enough to say that they are “pro-abortion” even though in many cases people who are willing to say that are more strongly in disagreement with me.
Surely you recognize that there are people out there who are pro-life and have placed a child for adoption, right? Some of the strongest pro-life advocates I’ve known have been women who were birthmoms of adopted children.
Many people in general society are not well-informed about adoption, so I can surely believe that someone somewhere made an uninformed comment about adoption, but
it would be foolish to think that no pro-lifer understands the complex emotions of an adoption decision.
Aside from that, I don’t see how it follows that just because some people have a mistaken view of adoption as being completely problem-free, that completely negates any ethical concerns about abortion.
Saying that justifies abortion would be equivalent to saying that if you can find someone who thinks it is wrong to kill a toddler, yet has a mistakenly rosy view about the foster care system being flawless, that abusive parents should be legally allowed to kill their toddlers. It doesn’t follow logically.
Additionally, I hope we all are aware that adoption practices have changed a lot since 1973. I’m pretty sure that back then nobody had ever heard of the concept of an “open adoption”, while nowadays many people in adoption circles believe that open adoption is the healthiest way to handle adoption. Additionally, back then any unwed pregnancy would have been viewed as shameful by many, which I suspect was a huge force in the secrecy and coercion surrounding adoption back then.
So does that mean that pro-lifers who are willing to adopt are okay in your book? They do exist, you know. Actually, newborn infants of all races are in pretty high demand for adoption. That’s one reason why there are so many overseas adoptions - there aren’t enough really young infants up for adoption in America for the supply of people who want to adopt a newborn.
Oh, and when did free speech become a “privilege” and not a right?
I use the term “pro-choice” because that is exactly what the “pro-life” group want to take away - a choice. I am not “pro-abortion” - I dislike that the need for them sometimes exists, but taking away the choice will in no means improve the situation of the woman faced with an unwanted (for whatever reason) pregnancy. I would not encourage another woman to have an abortion, nor do I know anyone who would.
“Pro-life”? I am pro-life. I enjoy it. The better (and more honest) name for abortion opponents is “anti-choice”. Very few of them actually care about what happens to the “life” they claim to be in favor of once it leave the womb.