The Pro-Choice Generation

historicalslut:

getinthehandbasket:

theoppressedlittlefetus:

redheadedblonde:

This makes me sick.

I hate abortion.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

But this? Anyone who has held a newborn, or seen the glow on a new mother’s face knows that this is absolutely ridiculous. It’s not any more or less murder than pre birth abortion is.. But people can get away with the “typical” abortion. If people are allowed to get away with this..

”..should be allowable up to the point that the child develops some ability to communicate and to anticipate the future”

What about people with special needs? What if there’s a 15 year old who can’t communicate? Is killing them considered a form of abortion?

Here’s an article written by Al Mohler about this. Al Mohler is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

———

The debate over abortion comes down to one essential issue — the moral status of the unborn child. Those making the case for the legalization of abortion argue that the developing fetus lacks a moral status that would trump a woman’s desire to abort the child. Those arguing against abortion do so by making the opposite claim; that the unborn child, precisely because it is a developing human being, possesses a moral status by the very fact of its human existence that would clearly trump any rationale offered for its willful destruction.

This central issue is often obscured in both public argument and private conversations about abortion, but it remains the essential question. We have laws against homicide, and if the unborn child is recognized legally and morally as a human being, abortion would be rightly seen as murder.

In the main, abortion rights advocates have drawn the moral line at the moment of birth. That is why, even with our contemporary knowledge of the developing fetus, abortion rights activists have persistently argued in favor of abortions right up to the moment of birth. Anyone doubting this claim needs only to consider…

Read More

What the hell is “after birth abortion”? Pretty sure that after a fetus is born it becomes it’s own being dependent on only itself as far as sustaining itself with its own organs and therefore has it’s own rights.

What you pro-lifers fail to consider is the rights of the parent that has to carry that child. You can’t just turn someone into a breeder against their will, even if “it’s only for 9 months!”

Uh.. yeah, what the fuck is “after birth abortion”??

Honestly, no. The debate over abortion does NOT come down to the “essential issue” of whether or not a fetus is a human being. It really comes down to the essential issue of the rights of the mother/uterus bearer vs. the rights of the fetus inside her*. Because, get this.. even if the fetus is considered a human being inside her, it doesn’t have any more rights than another human being. She* has the right to deny it the use of her body, just as she has the right to deny ANYONE the use of her body. If the fetus cannot survive outside the uterus.. well, that’s unfortunate but it’s no more morally reprehensible than denying someone your liver or a kidney just because OMG THEY’RE GONNA DIE WITHOUT IT. Nope. It’s still the donor’s choice, and her bodily autonomy still trumps any fetus’ “right to life.”

*sorry for the cissexist language - by “woman” and “her/she” I am referring to uterus-bearers and those who COULD get pregnant. Not all women can get pregnant, and not all people who can get pregnant are women.

^all this.

What the ever loving fuck?!?!

This “after-birth abortion” shit is still going around? BY DEFINITION, ABORTION CANNOT OCCUR ONCE THE FETUS HAS BEEN BORN, AFTER WHICH POINT IT BECOMES MURDER. Go read a law book or something. Like, damn.

(via lipsredasroses)

opinionlizard:

allarecreatedequal:

We don’t compare abortion to the holocaust to make you seem like Nazis or to undermine the lengthy suffering many Jews were forced to undergo. The only comparison we see between the holocaust and abortion is the ridiculous amount of deaths. Most of you agree that abortion is the ending of a human life, as has been proven by science. Thus, as over 58,288,000 have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade, the holocaust is the only large amount of deaths we can compare it to.

In summation: comparing abortion to the holocaust is not an ad hominem argument against you. It is simply a comparison of the outrageous amount of deaths both abortion and the holocaust have caused. 

The key difference, which happens to be a huge difference actually, between the Holocaust and abortion is suffering.
The people who died in the holocaust suffered terribly.

Embryos terminated in abortions do not suffer at all.

To compare the pain, torment, and suffering of all the people who lost their lives during the Holocaust to embryos that cannot feel pain, cannot be tormented, and cannot suffer is greatly devaluing to Holocaust victims and it’s incredibly offensive because of it.

I can see where you’re trying to come from, but it is not a solid argument in the slightest. It’s offensive and in my experience, all it does is get others upset with the person who makes this argument because of the reasons I listed above.

I’m really glad that people like OpinionLizard exist.

If you’re not already following them, then I suggest you do it!

itsnotachoiceitsachild:

“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

—

- Elie Wiesel, Holocaust Survivor

We have dealt with this asshat-ery before at PCG.  Elie Wiesel, who you have correctly identified as a Holocaust survivor, said this when asked specifically about abortion and the raging debate about reproductive health care: