Abortion Clinic Director Becomes Pro-Life After Witnessing Abortion...

Abortion is a horrible thing. There is no justification for it. Ever. We must protect the most vulnerable members of our society - the only among us without guilt of any kind.

Some posters here are perfect justification for abortion.

I'm not quite that hard-core but I am pretty strictly pro-life.

So someone had a change of heart. Not seeing the big deal.

How about the pro-lifers who have a change of heart when they have an unplanned pregnancy?

Still just reaffirming the right of people to make up their own damned minds. Stuff like this can't really be evidence of anything else.

I wonder why someone never proposed limiting a woman to having only one abortion in her lifetime (with allowances if a woman's life was endangered).

That would cut back on the number of abortions significantly since many of the women who have abortions are repeaters, while still keeping it as a legal option.

Well if you find an article about one, then you can start a thread.

Well there you go then. Murders will happen whether they are legal or not. Therefore, by your logic hit men should be legalized.

Here are several:
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

To be fair, alot of conventional medical procedures are physically disturbing to watch.

I wouldn't go that far. When there is a clear danger to the life of the mother from proceeding with the pregnancy, the issue is much more open to discussion and I fully support the right of the parents to make whichever choice seems the wisest to them. When the situation is such that neither mother nor child could survive if the pregnancy were allowed to proceed, there is hardly any room for discussion: abortion is the only reasonable option.

Other than that, however, I am most definitely anti-abortion. (Not "pro-life," a misleading term that could be taken to mean, in its most literal form, that I am against eating any plants or animals, which is definitely not the case.) I don't see how a living organism with human DNA should not be considered human, at least as far as the benefit of the doubt is concerned, until and unless there is some kind of clear, scientific demonstration to the contrary.

I find it interesting, in fact, that those who shout the loudest about scientific evidence being the only trustworthy basis for anything are nevertheless comfortable declaring a whole class of living organisms with distinct human DNA to be non-human without a scrap of scientific evidence to back up that position. It shows how the "science is the only trustworthy rule" is applied only when it upholds the desired conclusions...

​

"Murders will happen whether legal or not.

Here is your choice, do they happen in clinics and hospitals with psychological support before and after or do they happen in back streets by your local drug dealer?"

Hmmmmm, when that reasoning is applied in another context, it is seen to have major deficiencies.

If you want to defend abortion, you probably ought to have a more logical argument to do so. Otherwise, you weaken the position just by defending it will fallacious reasoning, thus giving the impression that it is not defensible.

​

I was thinking the other day, and I'm in complete agreement with Async on the abortion issue, how fucked up it is that liberals will go out of their way to protect the potential offspring of endangered species, eggs, mating grounds... because a fetus or egg of an endangered species is more of a life than an unborn baby.

Someone who doesn't think abortion is murder is fatally flawed - their opinion causes murders to go forward unhampered. I consider abortion to be on the same level of mass murder as the Holocaust.

Like Volpone said, murder is going to happen but we don't legalize hitmen.

The lasy in the OP has a change of heart in light of new information.

the person in your example has a change of heart despite an absence of first hand information.

See the difference?

Further, the person in the OP has a change of heart COUNTER to vested self interest.

In your example the change of mind is a RESULT of vested self interest.

Again, see the difference?

It's amazing how you accuse me of barbarism, when you are the barbarian.

At a significantly lower rate.

When trying to push there agenda PP and others testified in the late 60's that millions of women had so called "back alley" abortions and one of those people - Bernard Nathanson - later confirmed they just made that number up without any evidence for it.

Further, in 1957 (I believe, no less an authority than Planned Parenthood themselves published a newsletter in which their president wrote that the vast majority of illegal abortions took place in Doctor's offices and clinics.

WILL there be some dimwits who go to the back alley for an abortion?

sure.

there are dimwits who go to the back alley for crack or a $20 blow job. We don't make those things legal because someone is stupid enough to do them in spite of the law.


But it'd probably be 5% or less of the number of abortions we have now.

Not counting those who cross borders to get one.

Hmm...I used to work across the street from that place.

Wait. The UK has legalized murder?

Well that sure explains a few things.

Oh, and that whole rusty coathanger/"epidemic of backstreet abortions" thing is horseshit. It is up there with the guy who went home with a whore and woke up in a bathtub of ice, missing a kidney or terrorists shooting at jets with .50 rifles.

If men could get pregnant, there would be no abortion "debate"...

That's about as much nonsense as saying there'd be no war if women ran countries.

Yup. God damn us Evil White Men. Sitting around our clubs, swilling scotch, smoking cigars, and plotting how to keep women and coloureds down. And we'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for the meddling liberals!

The only way women get to run countries is by out-ballsing the pool of male candidates.

Logic doesn't really allow for much in the way of sentimental compassion, now does it?

Anyway, try this reason: Society has proven itself either unable or unwilling to restrict the cost of unwanted children to parents and those who oppose the right to abort. Nobody every responds to this directly with anything remotely compelling. It's always "money isn't a good reason to kill babies!!11 " or "you already pay for plenty of things you don't agree with, what's one more?" Bullshit deflections, both of them. If you're not going to supply a viable, workable alternative, don't interfere with the imperfect solution already in place.