Is

  • Thread starter Thread starter Siredee
  • Start date Start date
S

Siredee

Guest
the term ‘pro-life’ as used in the abortion debate a deliberate misnomer? These people who describe themselves as being ‘pro-life’ use this term to make it look as though their intent is to save lives or protect the lives of the innocent, but is this their main motivation? Are you sure these people don’t hide their true intention behind a convenient cover? I mean, these people are mostly the type who see a decline in moral behavior going on in society but in fact what is really happening is that society is gradually progressing away from a primitive stage where religion had too much influence. So it’s a case of ‘pro-life’ being really a deceptive term and ‘pro-religion’ is a more truthful term, isn’t it?
 
Not all pro-lifers are even religious. It can very simply be just a matter of common sense and compassion for both the woman and the unborn baby. Ever checked out the feminists for life?
Abortions kill human beings....before and after viablity. Before and after they can feel pain. Right up until the very last month of pregancy it is legal in Canada where I live to kill your unborn baby. In America you can murder your unborn child up until term if you can get a doctor to say you need it for health reasons...health reasons like false psychological risks, too much stress, etc.
Did you get that? In late term abortions, either your child will fully delivered except for the head, the doctor will reach up, stab the baby in the head with surgical scissors, and then suck out his brains (this is called the intact D&X), or the child will be given a lethal injection to the heart and be born dead or close to dead and left to die in a pan or on a table.
Earlier than that, the child is literally ripped apart limb from limb or sucked up.
Jill Stanek was a nurse who witnessed one of these atrocities and later became pro-life. There are also many nurses at Calgary Foothills going through the same trauma from having to watch a baby slowly die and get no care on the wishes of the parents.

Why do we call ourselves pro-life? If you got the stomache watch this video and see, but I warn you it is very graphic.

www.abortionno.com

Pro-lifers hate the death of innocent babies and the physical and psychological damage it does to women. The abortion death rate is three times higher than childbirth. Women are suffering from abortions too.

Now as for why "pro-choicers" call themselves pro-choice....

Giving women false information about the development of their babies? Calling their fully formed unborn child masses of tissue or a clump of cells? Covering up cases of pedophilia and stagetory rape just so they can get a bigger paycheck? Bringing women to unregulated clinics for surgeries?

Was making slaves a choice? Should it have been legal just because it was a choice? It seems not all choices should be legal after all. Does that make me anti-choice? I believe in choices insofar as the choices being made are not doing harm to others.
 
Yes, I believe they do.

If they deem themselves are pro-life, the conclusion is that the opposing view is anti-life, which is incorrect. Anyone who holds an anti-life view, religion or not, needs help.

I refer to them as anti-choicers.
 
Oh good grief. Yeah-- and there's not euphemism going on behind "pro choice". Give me a break!
 
It's as deliberate a misnomer as "pro-choice" is. It is not about choice or equality. If you were pro-choice then you would also support the father having an equal choice in the matter.

As it is if he chooses to want the child and she chooses to not want the child, the child is murdered. If he chooses to not want the child and she chooses to keep the child he is writing checks for the next 18 to 21 years.

Where is the equity in choice?
 
Of the two terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' it would seem to me that 'pro-choice' is actually the more deceptive of the terms. Once again, this is just my opinion, but you don't have to be 'pro-religion' to be 'pro-life' and therefore I don't think your "more truthful term" really fits.
 
The same could be said of calling pro-choicers "pro-death" but we both know that's not the case. Pro-lifers are not anti-choice, and pro-choicers are not anti-life. It's just semantics, no matter which position you take.
 
Not all pro-lifers are religious. Abortion is murder, however you look at it.
 
You are not even close. Pro-life means just that. Many who are not christian feel abortion is taking a life that begins at conception.Peace
 
Both sides use misnomers.

How many pro-lifers are also anti-war and anti-capital punishment?

But on the other side, how many pro-choicers would support a woman's right to choose, say, to take drugs? Or carry a concealed weapon? Sell her body in prostitution? Smoke in a public place? Even wear a seat belt in her own car?

They're just pretty labels that each side hides behind.

By the way, you don't have to be religious to oppose abortion.
 
I certainly do think that it is the wrong term, but "pro-religion" is not right either. The other side calls itself "pro-choice" not "pro-abortion" because then they paint their opposition as "anti-choice" and that's unAmerican.

Maybe calling them "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" is the best combination.
 
I disagree since you don't have to be religious to believe that all human life is sacred and should be protected from murder. Yes, most people who defend those who can't defend themselves have a spiritual motivation often based in some type of organized religion. But that isn't necessarily a prerequisite for compassion and mercy. It's just that those things often times come as a package - religion and mercy. Or religion and compassion, or religion and generosity.

And you want 'progress' away from that 'primitive stage'?
 
Back
Top