Originally Posted by PaleRider

The circumstances are irrelavent so long as one is not an imminent threat to the other's life. A man killing his nagging wife, and a sniper firing randomly from a bell tower on a college campus are also completely different circumstances. Do you support one, but decry the other?

It takes some form of


Zebras have no right to live, human beings do? And I am no more persecuting a woman for killing her child out of convenience than you are persecuting a man who kills his wife for nagging.



The unborn is already alive and in 98% of cases is perfectly healthy. Being alive and perfectly healty is not analogous to being sick or injured beyond any reasonable expectation of recovery. If that is the basis for your support of abortion, your reasoning is flawed. Or is this just one of many things you will throw against the wall in hope of finding something that sticks?



You need an outside source to live. We all do. Dependence is not a valid reason to kill. If it were, we would need no life support equipment because at the point you were unable to feed and take care of yourself, you would be history. Oh, wait. You are in that state when you are born but we can't just kill you because you have a right to live.

And tell me, are you in favor of other forms of human experimentation without the permission of the one being experimented on or just on this particular segment of the population?



Natural selection is a specious argument at best. If you favor natural selection, then you would be suggesting that we not respond to single car accidents because the drivier is obviously not a good driver and natural selection has removed him from the gene pool. You also would not favor any sort of public assistance since that would certainly thwart nature's selection of the weak or the unfit. Is that really your stance, or is it just a hypocritical attempt to substantiate your position.

Your right to live is not based on whether you are wanted or not. You have the right to live because you are a human being and your right to live trumps any right that anyone else may invoke so long as you are not an imminent threat to their life.

And killing a nagging wife with a .38 or firing randomly at students from a college belltower is also a choice, not a mandantory requirement. Do you really support the choice to kill another human being for any or no reason, or do you just support this sort of killing because your personal politics demands it whether you can fashion a reasonable argument to defend it or not? I have to tell you, so far, you haven't even come close to a reasonable argument. Comparing a perfectly healthy human being to comatose relatives, dying pets and zebras is pretty weak.



We have already established that your argument is weak and inaccurate. So far, it has consisted of one misrepresentation after another so your insistence on calling unborns parasites even though they clearly are not isn't surprising. Why didn't you just say up front that you support allowing women to kill their children without legal consequence for any or no reason and save yourself the embarrassment of this argument?



The wating lists to adopt infants are years long in every state. Further, that argument represents yet another logical fallacy since it begs the question and must assume that all women who might otherwise have an abortion would give up their children. Statistically speaking, women who intend to give up their child for whatever reason rarely do it once the child is born. Women develop an emotional attatchment to their child and your assumption that women would be giving them up in droves if abortion were outlawed is baseless.

Aside from that, it is interesting that you fabricate all of these very weak arguments to justify your position and then at the end, you simply admit that you are inhumane for no better reason than that you believe that somehow your right to live is based on the availability of "benevolent" housing.

Originally Posted by Gropiemon

And if it is I for one will stock up on coat hangers and rufies. C'mon in ladies I have warmed up the "mistake reversing hook" for ya.

Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos

You focus on individuals, I focus on society. Socialistic ideas yes, and in turn inhumane sounding but at the same time trying to benefit those around it.

Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos

My view just as yours is clearly biased,

Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos

I see the unborn alive and as part of a mother until it is capable of living on it's own.

Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos

You see it from the perspective that it is a human and in turn appear humane which in every way is a positive look.

Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos

But that physical biological attachment is what allows her to decide,

Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos

I would be less of a monster as you put me if there was somewhere for an unwanted child to go...but wait there is, they go to stem cell research.

Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos

Science also has proven that a fetus is part of a females body. It is all about perception.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

The coathanger is a myth. A very clever and very successful advertising campaign. "Back alley" abortions were so named because women entered the doctor's office through the back door. The very doctors who, in many cases, closed their general practices and opened abortion clinics soon after roe was decided.

Is there any part of the pro choice argument that isn't a lie, or based on a lie?

Originally Posted by Lexi

It was very real when abortion was not legal and back alley abortions were an every day thing. Not everyone went to the back alley doctors , a lot of women did it themselves. Those are the true facts, not a prolifers way of filling their agendas.

The pro lifers whole agenda is based on fear and lies.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

The coathanger is a myth. A very clever and very successful advertising campaign. "Back alley" abortions were so named because women entered the doctor's office through the back door. The very doctors who, in many cases, closed their general practices and opened abortion clinics soon after roe was decided.

Is there any part of the pro choice argument that isn't a lie, or based on a lie?

Originally Posted by oceanbreeze

Excuse me?
How is being Pro-life based on fear and lies?
What is to fear of a child?

Originally Posted by Lexi

I said pro lifers, (the fanatics) comments are based on fear and lies. There's nothing to fear of a child, where did I say that?????

Originally Posted by Lexi

It was very real when abortion was not legal and back alley abortions were an every day thing. Not everyone went to the back alley doctors , a lot of women did it themselves. Those are the true facts, not a prolifers way of filling their agendas.