This might sound like trolling, but I think it's a valid question. According to the pro-abort position, the definition of personhood is basically subjective. They can't even agree on what constitutes a "person" even among themselves. So then what makes a pro-abortionist, itself, a person? (notice I used the word "it" rather than "him/her" in order to maintain the same neutral language used when discussing a fetus).
Choicers are obviously an empty shell, without a soul... or a fully functionally brain for that matter...
It is a good question. They have no clue when viability is...if its human or not...and a person. Everyone of them have a different position. And Pasithea believes in abortion for the entire nine months. What and who are they then...that hold the pro-abort label?
think the definitions might not be clear pro-lifers believe the gov should be able to force you to give birth (IE anti-choice) pro-abortionists believe the gov should be able to force you to abort your pregnancy PRO-CHOICEers believe this should be the womens choice, not the governments choice
Not really but I'll play. I wouldn't know what pro-aborts think, but as a pro-choice person I can tell you that it is not just our position but that of the majority of the scientific community. Hence why we are called pro-choice, we form our own opinions and are not lead by the nose by religious doctrine .. unlike the pro-life people pro-choice are not an organized system of people, we are a set of people who do not want to see laws being enacted by and for religious means. Shame you couldn't do the same when using "pro-abort", as far as I am aware no pro-choice person is actually pro-abortion, the difference is we campaign for better contraception, sex education and the right of individual choice - where as pro-lifers campaign for state control over a females womb, less contraception and sex education.
Translated: Pro aborts (pro choicers) beleive women should ba allowed to commit abortion homicide against their child at will. - - - Updated - - - Everyone, even the scientific community, cannot decide? OK then we should use the safest definition then that protects the defenseless child in utero the most. Just makes sense. Interestingly enough, many pro life people don't use religious rationales at all. I don't! The laws of our land are inconsistent and that is wrong. The child in utero either is a human being or he/she isn't. Who kills the child, doesn't determine whether the child is a human being or not logically, but it does legally right now.
This is the proof once again. From Pasithea's own post. Aw church did you already forget I am in favor of legalizing abortion throughout all terms? You used to even commend me for my stance saying I was the only one who was not a hypocrite. I am so sad that you already forgot. =( Less red tape for women to deal with the better when it comes to abortion. Just like Canada, no laws on abortion at all. Sounds great to me."
