How "Pro-Life" is all about anti-choice for women

Cookie Parker · #1 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007, 09:41 AM

pro-life: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

In here find out why "pro-life" has its loopholes and why it's okay to kill Iraqi children...or to let American children die for lack of health care accessibility, but not okay for a woman to choose her life.....

This anti-funding the poor and single mother women group is all about putting women back to the biblical times under a man's thumb, as many of those who marry 14 year olds convince the "flock" they were called by god.

This is the biggest joke in American freedoms and the biggest threat to our rights. This anti group has created vastly more poverty in this nation, caused the increase in infant mortality and maternal mortality in this nation from its anti-Christ stands and continues to see itself as pious, holy, and right to put women and children as second class citizens......they are, they say, according to the Bible.

oceanbreeze · #2 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007, 09:57 AM

There is alot of anger in your post. It's important to have control over your own life before you speil your beliefs at society.

Skinny Fatts · #3 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oceanbreeze

There is alot of anger in your post. It's important to have control over your own life before you speil your beliefs at society.

Maybe we can go together and donate a "cat-o' nine tails" for Cooke. Some self-flagellation time might do the trick.

Cookie Parker · #4 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oceanbreeze

There is alot of anger in your post. It's important to have control over your own life before you speil your beliefs at society.

Limbaugh teach you to talk like that?

There's no anger in my voice...and those who are Pro-Choice never killed anyone defending the constitutional rights of women.

Nah, not anger. Passion. You righties are so void of that. You just want control...and in your attempts to get it over people, lose it.

Is that all you have for this article? How sad...and pathetic...but not unexpected.

Cookie Parker · #5 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

erspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos.

Beliefs

Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued from fertilisation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States), and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.[1] From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a human being. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong. Such an act is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others through scientific advancement or, in the case of abortion, by ending the hardship of a woman with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, as such benefits come at the expense of the life of what they consider a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly be unviable, such as anencephalitic fetuses. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are also opposed by some pro-life people based on a belief that life is sacred and must be protected even against the wishes of people who want to end their own lives.

Pro-lifers are frequently (but not always) in opposition to certain forms of birth control, particularly hormonal contraception such as ECP's, which may prevent the implantation of an embryo. Because pro-life advocates largely believe that life begins at conception, they often regard these forms of birth control as abortifacients.[2] The Catholic Church recognizes this view,[3] but the possibility that hormonal contraception has post-fertilization effects is currently disputed within the scientific community. (See Also: Emergency contraception and implantation)

On the issue of abortion, pro-life campaigners are opposed by pro-choice campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-choice view does not consider a fetus to have the full legal rights of a human being, so the issue is instead considered to be the human rights of the pregnant woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy or carry it to term.

The movement in the United States largely began after Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision that held abortion to be a constitutional right.

Attachment to a pro-life position is very often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life (see also Culture of Life). Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among pro-life advocates.[4]

Here you go, OB, hope this isn't too much for your little brain to absorb at once...i'll feed you small bites, honey. Now, any thoughts on this?

Cookie Parker · #6 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007, 11:13 AM

Quote:

The major stated goal of the pro-life movement is to "restore legal protection to innocent human life."[5] This protection would include fetuses and embryos, persons who cannot communicate their wishes due to physical or mental incapacitation, and those who are too weak to resist being euthanized.

Some pro-life advocates, such as those subscribing to the philosophy of a Consistent Life Ethic, oppose virtually all acts that end human life. They would argue that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all wrong.

Others argue that the death penalty can be a fair punishment for murder, justifiably inflicted by lawful authority, whereas abortion is an attack on innocent human life that could never be considered because it lacks the same due process protections that a criminal trial requires before any imposition of the death penalty. In recent years, the issue of the death penalty has gained more attention because some pro-life advocates wish to create a more unified pro-life ideal that prohibits the death penalty. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the strongest proponents of this unified position. The increasing attention paid to this controversial position may result from the large Roman Catholic membership of the pro-life movement, a membership that is also striving to adhere to recent religious statements from the Vatican on the death penalty.[6]

While some pro-life advocates are opposed to euthanasia of humans under all circumstances, others believe that individuals, especially adults, should have the right to choose to end their own lives if they become terminally ill or severely disabled. Because many such individuals are unable to communicate their wishes, euthanasia will likely remain controversial within the pro-life community. While some believe that direct euthanasia should only be an option for persons with the ability to communicate at the time the procedure, others believe that individuals should be allowed to state their wishes in advance, such as in a living will, or that family members and/or persons with power of attorney or guardianship should be allowed to make decisions regarding euthanasia for persons who are unable to communicate.

Cessation of life support for an individual who is unable to live without life support is sometimes referred to as indirect or passive euthanasia. Although many pro-life advocates support indirect euthanasia for persons judged by their doctors as having little or no hope for recovery, other pro-life advocates oppose indirect euthanasia, even under those circumstances. Some pro-life advocates strongly disagree with the court decisions which allowed Terri Schiavo's husband to have her feeding tube removed. Indeed, most pro-life advocates familiar with the Terri Schiavo case framed the issue as one of direct euthanasia on the grounds that nutrition and hydration, in their view, do not constitute "life support".[citation needed]

In contrast, there are yet others who find that the pro-life movement's focus on legislative means is heading down the wrong track, believing that working through means of sex education, birth control, and aid to single mothers will more realistically reduce abortions while also drawing others into the movement. Rather than causing a political divide by arguing what can and cannot legally be done and what laws should be passed about it, such non-legislative pro-life goals are sought in order to bridge the gap with those who may consider themselves against abortion but pro-choice, because they cannot agree with passing restrictive laws--whether concerning gestation or anything else. Two prominent groups holding this ideology are Anarchists for Life--a pro-life anarchists group--which objects to legislative solutions to any problem by definition[7] and Feminists for Life[8].

Then, let's consider this...oh, but don't strain your little right brain, OB...read one and then respond to it and then take on the other...and so on!!

Dom1 · #7 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

pro-life: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

Big deal, its an opinion piece full of generalities and supposition. Prostitution laws say that women can't choose, why don't you go on a crusade to allow women to sell their body? Thats about choice also, and that seems to be the basis for yoru argument.

basharp1 · #8 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007, 12:50 PM

When one of sound mind and body knowingly engages in act knowing its outcome they must be held accountable for that act. Just as one who enters into a contract can't disaffirm it unless proven not of sound mind and body or a minor. Sex=procreation, simple as that. Other than acts of rape and incest an innocent being I believe shouldn't be killed as a means of a feminist shouting girl power. Most woman I know that have had an abortion, have had more than one believe me. Just because it can be performed doesn't make it right. The problem is a question of morality. Thats for another post.

Skinny Fatts · #9 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

...and those who are Pro-Choice never killed anyone defending the constitutional rights of women...

Who have they killed?

Realist1 · #10 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

pro-life: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

In here find out why "pro-life" has its loopholes and why it's okay to kill Iraqi children...or to let American children die for lack of health care accessibility, but not okay for a woman to choose her life.....

This anti-funding the poor and single mother women group is all about putting women back to the biblical times under a man's thumb, as many of those who marry 14 year olds convince the "flock" they were called by god.

This is the biggest joke in American freedoms and the biggest threat to our rights. This anti group has created vastly more poverty in this nation, caused the increase in infant mortality and maternal mortality in this nation from its anti-Christ stands and continues to see itself as pious, holy, and right to put women and children as second class citizens......they are, they say, according to the Bible.

Other than getting this from the Site you offer us: The website is unable to display the webpage,,,

I'll be the first here to stand up for your Right to Abort any, and all unwanted "Babies" you produce Cookie.

You have my full support.