Pro-life atheists

[The Valkyrie]

No, it's a likely fact.

Prove me wrong.

I notice, once again, that you ignore the rest of the statements and concentrate on me being facetious, anyway.

Now you've gone fundie.

Still avoiding the argument and the rest of the statements.

And the moment you compared people who are pro-choice to the nazis, you started the strawmen.

You fail.

[Cato]

For all you people that are against late term abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Do you agree that the baby should be saved if it can be saved?

No....ectopia cordis. The mother and father, to the extent the mother permits, should make the decision. Your absolutes are unworkable.

[Mudhammam]

How many children who have suffered unspeakable horrors and deaths at the hands of unloving parents could have been spared such pain and suffering if their mothers would have had abortions?

That seems like a fallacious, and dangerous, argument to make. What's the difference between that and asking: How many descendants of World War II's millions of victims might now be suffering? Maybe wars in general do future generations a favor by sparing so many a possibility of life? To suggest that abortion is preferable to adoption because the child MIGHT suffer by his adoptive parents seems similarly unjustified and potentially harmful as policy, personal or otherwise.

[Ryantology]

That seems like a fallacious, and dangerous, argument to make.

I prefer to posit it this way:

Any parent who is considering getting an abortion because they don't want to raise a child is probably a person who shouldn't be forced to raise a child. For really obvious reasons.

There are exceptions, sure, but I know what it's like to be a child who was unplanned and unwanted, but kept anyway. My wife knows it even more than I do.

[BlackSwordsman]

That seems like a fallacious, and dangerous, argument to make.

I prefer to posit it this way:

Any parent who is considering getting an abortion because they don't want to raise a child is probably a person who shouldn't be forced to raise a child. For really obvious reasons.

There are exceptions, sure, but this is something I know both first- and second-hand.

I think adoption is appropriate, why is it not? Sure I understand the having to carry it, and it seems like such a waste. It almost seems selfish to me.

(If I don't want it no one else can have it) kind of mentality but I understand the struggle.

[Losty]

How many children who have suffered unspeakable horrors and deaths at the hands of unloving parents could have been spared such pain and suffering if their mothers would have had abortions?

That seems like a fallacious, and dangerous, argument to make. What's the difference between that and asking: How many descendants of World War II's millions of victims might now be suffering? Maybe wars in general do future generations a favor by sparing so many a possibility of life? To suggest that abortion is preferable to adoption because the child MIGHT suffer by his adoptive parents seems similarly unjustified and potentially harmful as policy, personal or otherwise.

Comparing abortion to genocide? Really?

What adoptive parents? They kids I mentioned were not adopted. Those were real cases about real kids and their biological parents.

---

I prefer to posit it this way:

Any parent who is considering getting an abortion because they don't want to raise a child is probably a person who shouldn't be forced to raise a child. For really obvious reasons.

There are exceptions, sure, but this is something I know both first- and second-hand.

I think adoption is appropriate, why is it not? Sure I understand the having to carry it, and it seems like such a waste. It almost seems selfish to me.

(If I don't want it no one else can have it) kind of mentality but I understand the struggle.

Yep. Those selfish bitches. You don't understand the struggle or anything else. You might as well shut up while you still feel smart.

[The Valkyrie]

I prefer to posit it this way:

Any parent who is considering getting an abortion because they don't want to raise a child is probably a person who shouldn't be forced to raise a child. For really obvious reasons.

There are exceptions, sure, but this is something I know both first- and second-hand.

I think adoption is appropriate, why is it not? Sure I understand the having to carry it, and it seems like such a waste. It almost seems selfish to me.

(If I don't want it no one else can have it) kind of mentality but I understand the struggle.

No. If someone gets knocked up and decides to have it and give it up for adoption, good for them.

But, and here's the bit that doesn't seem to get through to many forced-birthers, she should have the CHOICE.

As far as I'm aware no-one is "pro-abortion" as heywood loves to keep putting it, a term, like calling a fetus or zygote a baby, that is designed to elicit emotion. People are pro-choice, meaning the woman has the choice and can control her own body and reproduction.

[Mudhammam]

That seems like a fallacious, and dangerous, argument to make. What's the difference between that and asking: How many descendants of World War II's millions of victims might now be suffering? Maybe wars in general do future generations a favor by sparing so many a possibility of life? To suggest that abortion is preferable to adoption because the child MIGHT suffer by his adoptive parents seems similarly unjustified and potentially harmful as policy, personal or otherwise.

Comparing abortion to genocide? Really?

Eh, not quite. I was comparing the rationale--nothing more, nothing less-- that you cited in reply to this:

My dear kid brother, would not be here had his 12 year old mother aborted him. She had him, gave him up for adoption.

I didn't see anything having to do with abuse there. Yes, child abuse is horrible but to imply that the solution is more abortions, seems like I said, potentially dangerous. Only in that I do think it can be compared to the rationale used to justify genocide, or perhaps less extreme but still horrible, forced eugenics.

[Elskidor]

Has anyone else noticed - likely the ladies have - that the majority of the most outspoken anti-choicers are male?

Ah yes, I made a post about this on TTA.

I was going to post a pic I saw on this, but I couldn't figure out how to do it so here is a link.

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/imag...90_438.jpg


It's a no win situation.

[Esquilax]

I think adoption is appropriate, why is it not? Sure I understand the having to carry it, and it seems like such a waste. It almost seems selfish to me.

(If I don't want it no one else can have it) kind of mentality but I understand the struggle.

That's probably a very easy position to take for (what I assume to be, from your avatar and username) a guy. Men don't ever have to treat pregnancy itself as a thing, since it never happens to us; fixating on just what happens after birth is skipping over all the stuff that happens before it that I gather must be quite unpleasant.

Kids don't just flop out all fine and dandy after a twenty second labor; focusing on adoption and so on might be an appealing thought for an anti-choice advocate, but let's not pretend there aren't several steps to the process you've avoided to get there.