Pro-Life?

I view the political stance on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, etc, as being nothing more that ways to distinguish the two parties. In reality, both care little about such issues, rather, they only pander to them to help create differences between them. If they did not do so, the public might then realize that both parties are really one and the same and just loose interest in the whole lot of them.

Think about it, if you remove the emotion from social issues such as abortion/gay rights, what emotion is left to get people energized to support either party?

Originally posted by whodey
Don't be so hard on him. In fact, he is still upset with his mother for birthing him.

LOL!!!!!

Originally posted by whodey
I view the political stance on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, etc, as being nothing more that ways to distinguish the two parties. In reality, both care little about such issues, rather, they only pander to them to help create differences between them. If they did not do so, the public might then realize that both parties are really one and the ...[text shortened]... ch as abortion/gay rights, what emotion is left to get people energized to support either party?

BS big time, dear whodey🙂

Either you stand for the right of the abortion or you stand against it. The reasons behind the opinion of the individual can be rational or irrational, motivated (or not motivated) by principles like his religion, his social and political views, his personal political awareness and the strategy of his political party -and anyway they have to do with the understandment of issues which they are not critical for the Americans and the Europeans but they are still a matter of life or death for the Africans. As always, when the necessity for a decision arises, the emotion is a strong factor but not the sole one.

The exact procedure adopted by the Republicans does not derive solely fom the "emotion" but is perfectly calculated, and it has to do with the indifference of that party and its members to the future of the Africans. One has to know how crucial is the meaning of such a decision for the Africans, and he has to react accordingly. This awareness separates the decent citizen from the insufferable dolt. The rest are mere excuses.

So the opinion of the individual is crucial. The citizen has to decide if he will stand for real issues such as abortion/ gay rights etc, or not. And he must not allow to be driven by his emotions solely.

Originally posted by whodey
Don't be so hard on him. In fact, he is still upset with his mother for birthing him.

It never crossed your mind that every woman should have the right to choose freely whether to give birth to her child or not;

Originally posted by black beetle
BS big time, dear whodey🙂

Actually, whodey's post is quite accurate.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Actually, whodey's post is quite accurate.

Of cource whodey's post is not accurate.

You in person, do you believe or you do not that the denial of birth control products to Africa will inevitably results in many deaths?

Originally posted by black beetle


You in person, do you believe or you do not that the denial of birth control products to Africa will inevitably results in many deaths?

Of course it will. Everybody dies. Anything that causes more births causes more deaths.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of course it will. Everybody dies. Anything that causes more births causes more deaths.

Why you try to derail the conversation?

The denial of birth control products to Africa causes deaths because the parents of the children are unable to feed and treat them properly. Or you disagree?

So far, I see lots of people trying to claim the innocence of the Pro-life 'man in the street'. So who was it who stopped the birth control drugs going to Africa and why?

Originally posted by whodey
Don't be so hard on him. In fact, he is still upset with his mother for birthing him.

Oh dear... your attempt at wit is like a dagger in the testicles of stand-up humour.

Originally posted by black beetle
It never crossed your mind that every woman should have the right to choose freely whether to give birth to her child or not;

No because it's not really her body they're doing anything to. It's the baby's body that they are destroying. No one has the right to terminate/murder/kill a human being whether it's still in the womb or not.

Originally posted by black beetle
It never crossed your mind that every woman should have the right to choose freely whether to give birth to her child or not;

We all know, or should know, that the issue is when a child becomes a human being. Therefore, if and when the child becomes "human" the child then has rights just as the woman does.

So when is this magical time for you? Is it once the child passes out of the womb or is it when the child would survive outside the womb if birthed at that moment?

Originally posted by black beetle
BS big time, dear whodey🙂

Either you stand for the right of the abortion or you stand against it. The reasons behind the opinion of the individual can be rational or irrational, motivated (or not motivated) by principles like his religion, his social and political views, his personal political awareness and the strategy of his political party -and a s abortion/ gay rights etc, or not. And he must not allow to be driven by his emotions solely.

I don't know how things are in Africa or Europe but for those in the US the issues that seem to motivate people the most are social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. For example, we have the Christian right whose sole reason for existing are such issues. If it were not for such issues I dare say they would never have come into existence. If you don't believe me, just watch the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. It is like a witch hunt to try and determine if they would consider over turning Roe vs. Wade. All other issues pale in comparison.

Of course, the other issue at hand is the economy. Money is naturally a motivating and emotional issue with people. Typically people have the knee jerk reaction of voting against the party in office at times of economic hardships no matter the facts at hand.

Originally posted by chappy1
No because it's not really her body they're doing anything to. It's the baby's body that they are destroying. No one has the right to terminate/murder/kill a human being whether it's still in the womb or not.

Abortion is abortion and not a murder. Probably the actual meaning of the words is Greek to a religionist and to everybody that he is unable to think rationally.

The issue at this thread is the fact that the Vatican and the Pro-life people pressed for the denial of birth control products to Africa; in my opinion this act causes deaths because the parents of the children are unable to feed and treat them properly. What is your opinion?

Originally posted by whodey
We all know, or should know, that the issue is when a child becomes a human being. Therefore, if and when the child becomes "human" the child then has rights just as the woman does.

So when is this magical time for you? Is it once the child passes out of the womb or is it when the child would survive outside the womb if birthed at that moment?

The issue has to do solely with the right of the woman to be pregnant or not. If the woman wishes not to raise a child for health or social reasons, then she has the right to have an abortion. Pregnancy means not that the woman must anyway be forced to give birth.

An early abortion kills nobody because a fetus is not recognized as a person.