Let’s look at the argument that killing a person outside of the womb is different than inside the womb. In both instances a life is ended. In both instances that person would have lived if an outside force hadn’t killed it. Both people would be aware and feel pain while being killed.
The only difference is their physical location. By saying that since the one person is inside a womb they don’t have a right to live doesn’t make sense. Do co-joined twins have the right to decide if their twin dies? Do employers have the right to kill employees who work inside their buildings? (Employees need to be sustained (pay) just a like a baby needs to be sustained. And yes, many premature babies survive outside of the womb.) Why is it considered a double-murder when a pregnant woman is killed? So: where a person is doesn’t make them any less of a person. How old a person is doesn’t make them any less of a person. How inconvenient a person is doesn’t make them any less of a person.

Which leads to the problem with the next argument which says supporting abortion is only supporting a woman’s right to choose. But let’s finish that sentence: “supporting a woman’s right… to kill their baby.” That IS what you’re fighting for if you’re pro-abortion. What is relevant is not the ability to make choices but what that choice actually is.
Choosing what hamburger to eat is entirely different than choosing to kill someone. ANY choice that involves hurting someone else should be a choice that is questioned. So the labels of “Anti-choice” and “Anti-woman” are NOT synonymous with “Prolife”. If the baby that is to be aborted is female than those against abortion would in fact be “PRO-woman”. If the woman chose to let her baby live then people who are against abortion would also be “PRO-choice.” The problem isn’t the right to choose – THE PROBLEM IS WHAT THAT CHOICE IS.
If you’re in favor of the choice of killing babies then “Pro-death” and “Anti-Baby” are indeed accurate.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx

also, you are aware you compared getting an abortion to killing out the entire jewish race, right?

yeah, well, let’s see here: “anti-choice” and “anti-woman” don’t look too great on bumper stickers, either. that argument goes both ways, buddy. personally, you can call me whatever you want. i’m pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-death, and all of the above. obviously, i prefer to be called pro-choice, just like the opposite end of the spectrum prefers the term pro-life. but that doesn’t really matter to me. it’s just a label; it doesn’t fully explain my view on the issue and why i believe in what i believe in.

“By pretending this is about choice, it seems to give people who are making a horrendous moral decision, something to grab on to.”

i don’t understand why some people think the pro-abortion argument ISN’T about choice. how could it not be about that? what else could our argument possibly be for? do pro-life people think we’re arguing just for the sake of killing babies? because we’re that sadistic? of course not. and it’s not like most pro-choice people are doing this for their own gain. how many pro-choicers actually plan on having abortions, anyway? i know i certainly don’t. and i doubt people like kajal ever plan on getting an abortion, either. so obviously we’re not arguing this point just so we ourselves can have abortions. we argue in favor of abortions because we think having that CHOICE, that option, that safety net, is important and critical to a free society.

“It’s not a battle with people who think killing unborn babies is wrong, but rather with people who are threatening to take away their right to choose. That makes it a whole lot easier to hold your head up high.”

god, whoever wrote this article is extremely pretentious. i fully recognize that people who are pro-life believe killing unborn babies is wrong. no shit. isn’t that pretty obvious? however, i also believe pro-life people want to take away a woman’s right to choose. it’s not like you can only pick one those things. why can’t pro-life people be both? i’m willing to recognize the fact that pro-choicers support the termination of unborn babies, and pro-lifers don’t. i also recognize the fact that pro-choicers want to keep a woman’s choice intact, while pro-lifers don’t. it is plenty easy for me to hold my head up high knowing all the facts, and knowing all the pros and cons of the pro-choice agenda. with all of this in mind, i am still able to say that i share the same ideals that the pro-choice stance shares, and i’m proud of it, not ashamed.

Illume all the stars in heaven
Aborted babies looking down
Number them in the millions
Persons and places for a noun

The sacred sanctity of life
Sacrilege in Roe vs. Wade
Forsaking “Thou shall not kill”
Anything, which God has made

Woe to abortion on demand
And to pro-slaughter for choice
Rebound echoes of the Spirit
Not hiding their helpless voice

Masses of malignant tumors
Removed cancers like infanticide
Euthanasia’s precedent
No less a being inside

Named sweet souls as meaningless
Outside of a mother’s womb
All the innocents come from God
Where all dead life is resumed

Their bones were never hidden
Secretly and skillfully wrought
Premeditated murderers
Without pre or afterthought

At the right hand of the Father
He incepted them at death
Thrown cold in a surgical pan
Gasping and fighting for breath

Divine inception and purpose
Things that go bump in the night
And what of PETA activists
With more rights than human life

Prepare to met your Maker
Next to the smile of murdered kin
Eager for acknowledgement
Beast of burdens born within

The distant sound of trumpets
For whom does the death bell toll?
Ready and waiting to greet you
Face to face and soul to soul.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx

What is death? Can it be defined by what it is not? If so, then death is not life—therefore it’s synonymous with the end of life.

If death’s the end of life, when does life begin?

In Terri Schiavo’s case, the question was not “Is this person dead?” but rather “Is this person truly alive?”

Wikipedia defines that an ad hominem consists of replying to a factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Asked another way, when does death begin or life end in abortions? Can proving or disproving when life begins rewrite morality, and can the argumentum ad hominem be defined as “A la carte Christianity”–take what you like and leave what you don’t, when even science proves the baby’s heart beats within 10 days?

Can we speak with vague certainty over the sanctity of life, debating the beginning of one’s existence, but dare we, who say it is important to follow the teachings of the Bible, unequivocally reject the moral absolutes of what God has to say on the subject?

God told the prophet Jeremiah, in Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” In Proverbs 6:16-17, we’re told that God hates hands that shed innocent blood. I challenge anyone to say a child’s blood isn’t innocent.

For instance, Scott Peterson was charged with two counts of murder; one for his wife and the other for their unborn (named) and very much alive person. Also, if a man hits a pregnant woman and injures the baby she’s carrying; there are ordained laws against this offense. Is Caylee Anthony’s life worth more than a living child protected by the womb?

Last weeks headlines read that Florida bio-bagged a live botched abortion; the 23 week old baby was born alive and thrown into the trash! At 23 weeks old, this baby was felt daily by the mother, making this a premeditated killing from the heart.

Are we to understand that killing a baby within the womb is justifiable but once it passes outside the womb, the baby gains a soul and somehow a life that wasn’t there before? And to the doctors who commit these crimes in the darkness of a womb—why, is it so different in the light?

Why do animals and PETA activists have more rights than human life and why should unfettered pro-abortion be nothing less than infanticide; a viable, chargeable murder in the first degree or is abortion merely thought of as modern-day birth control?

With God’s input, I’d bet that death is only the beginning…