Re: Powerful Pro Life Speech

[xXxloveandlightxXx]

this hasnt changed my views what so ever...women should have a choice...if you dont like abortion then dont get one...most of this is just an argument of personal morals. if i was forced to carry an unwanted child i would go crazy due to the emotional and mental damage during and after it was born...its just not right to force something like that on anyone.

[LovedbcHim]

In psychology I was taught that both psychological and physical development start at conception and go on through the lifespan. Why in the first 9 months of that child's life should we be allowed to take their lives?

[hschan4]

@LovedbcHim Where were you taught that? Theology school?

[michaelclarkemc]

A baby is not like a tatto or scare that u can remove for ur plessure

[WeAreYoung17]

Couldn't this argue be considered ageism?

[angelic6465]

If you would like to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions perhaps you could be more proactive about the issue. Unless a woman has in-vitro fertilization or is the virgin mary.. a man is also involved. If you encourage more men to take responsibility for birth control then it would cut down on unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Pro-lifers should be handing out condoms and giving free vasectomies men. Do women have all the responsibility? Why aren't more men practicing safe sex?

[DeanClark68]

Stephanie Gray respects life and is my hero.

[ashatbulaparanormal]

I have a video in my favorites that maybe you should look at. the video is Called "You have the nerve to ask why?? "that is my story.Watch it and think if this could happen to you and how would you handle it.

[ashatbulaparanormal]

you know this is a lot of crap, we kill everyday and get away with it.We're kill men,woman,children and unborn at this very moment with this war over seas.Every time our troops pick up a gun and aim it at a human and pull the trigger,why aren't you stopping that!!!!!

[hschan4]

I suggest you protest war, rather than wasting your energy on a dead issue like this.

[FightingRight]

articulate, intelligent and helpful

[slyjokerg]

to be clear, i am pro-choice, not personally against the idea as a hypothetical if i was a woman, take abortion and it's realities very seriously, and think that it is a somewhat unfortunate conclusion to some people's individual circumstances. i suppose you could say that it being a right is a necessary evil, even if you want to think of it as evil (which i don't). divorce is unpleasant, but chosen for many reasons, and is sometimes seen as a necessity. so is war.

[slyjokerg]

ISSUE... get it straight. INSIDE a woman's body or NOT INSIDE a woman's body.  within one year after birth, or within 95 years after birth.. all the same. all being that have been born are OUTSIDE of a woman's body. comparing the two realities is the very point. you can't kill born people because you simply choose to, as you can choose to abort a pregnancy that is going on inside your body. the condition is completely different, and the exact point.

[turnkit]

So if I understand what you are saying, you believe that  because the child is gestating it should lose any legal right to person hood, or that it just never has any until it's born. Is that right?

[slyjokerg]

the gestating being isn't subject to the woman's decision merely because it is gestating, but because of where it is gestating... inside a particular woman's body. a being is literally not a person until it is born, despite your opinions. not until a baby is born can you claim it on your taxes, officially name it, or get it a social security number. we also don't have funerals, and death certificates issued, for miscarriages or aborted beings. just thought i would point those things out 4u.

[turnkit]

So you're saying: before it's born the fetus or embryo should have no rights to live but after it's born it's a full-fledged member of society and killing it should not be legal then. That's your position, right?

[slyjokerg]

it is obvious that you are going down the path of "why are people charged with crimes for harming fetuses if they have no rights prior to being born?"

the rights of the fetus or embryo are in the domain of the woman. if she intends to take the pregnancy to term, no one else has the right to stop that. that is interfering with her reproductive rights. no one has the right to proscribe, nor mandate (or cause one without the woman's consent) an abortion or de facto abortion.

[hschan4]

@turnkit It's not only slyjokerg's opinion, its also the law's. Sorry to burst your bubble there. I think your debating a dead issue here (pun intended) and your energies are better spent on helping those who have already been born, rather than the unborn. Trust me there are PLENTY of born, alive people who could really use your help and there doesn't have to be an ethical debate about it either.

[Christislife]

@slyjokerg So what type of being is it? Also, there are a few countries where there are no taxes, social security numbers, birth or death certificates ever given... Are those beings living there not human either?

[slyjokerg]

it appears you are screening posts again, not allowing free expression. we will see if you post all of the things i had to say.

[turnkit]

As I've already stated I do moderate these messages. I moderate them because I want the issue to stay focused on abortion and not let it turn into the typical fairly useless name-calling which occurs in most other threads on the abortion issue.

I know it can be frustrating but consider that your messages are hidden in flood of "you're just a xxxxx!!!"

[slyjokerg]

it harms the discourse when anyone that wants to discuss anything has to wait an indefinite amount of time for you to approve what they say. also, that stance can easily be a mask for censorship.

[slyjokerg]

you moderate the messages because you want to express w/e you like, without having to confront anyone else's positions.

[slyjokerg]

i don't have any stake in anyone choosing to have an abortion. that isn't what supporting abortion rights is. again, if no one ever has one, that's fine with me. i have no stake in it, and don't promote, nor try to limit it. the RIGHT TO CHOOSE is the issue, not the act itself. no pro-choice person roots for abortions to take place. you don't seem to understand that. we aren't disappointed when someone chooses to have a baby. not sure how the point can be conveyed more clearly.

[turnkit]

I think you are being intellectually dishonest on this point.

This is what you're argument sounds like to me: say I advocated for man-boy love legality, aka pedophilia. If I walked around saying "hey I am not FOR or AGAINST pedophilia, I just think people should have a CHOICE" do you see how contradictory that would sound?

If I said I wanted to legalize killing born children up to the first year after they were born, but that I really wasn't FOR or AGAINST it -- I just want the option...-!

[slyjokerg]

pedophilia does not involve the gestation of a being inside a woman, so the attempted analogy is false. your side always wants to try to equate having a being gestating inside of a woman with w/e they see fit. nothing is the same, and isn't equivalent. nothing is as personal and unique to literal autonomy as having a being gestating inside of you. you have to learn to grasp that reality.

[slyjokerg]

the reality of a woman not wanting a being gestating inside of her is unique to her. after a being is born, it is in the realm of all people, in that it is not inside anyone else's body, and exists, living, breathing in the world, exactly as anyone else does. equality exists because of that circumstance. inside a woman, the world is not affected as the woman is. a woman doesn't have the right to kill a born child, any more than she can kill any other born, autonomous person at her discretion.

[slyjokerg]

the ad hominems come from the maniacal, anti-choice zealots. facts are facts. no pro-choice person is pro-abortion. so saying they are is in itself a deliberately inflammatory ad hominem attack. i am not literally pro-abortion, but you are literally anti-choice, as you want to remove the choice. literal truth is literal truth.

[turnkit]

What are people who are "pro-choice" asking to be able to choose? One choice is that the child be born and the other choice is that the "blob of tissue" or whatever you want to call it (I call it a "baby") is killed.

If one of the choices a pro-choice person wants to be able to choose is to have an abortion how can you say that "no pro-choice person is pro-abortion"?

Is any pro-choice person "anti-abortion"... to the point that they want to outlaw it? No. Of course not.

[slyjokerg]

pro-choice isn't asking anything. it is demanded, and it is the law. the choice is to not be stopped from continuing a pregnancy and not be forced to continue a pregnancy. are you dense? that is the very issue. no pro-choice person is pro-abortion, as every one of us would be fine if no woman, or her own free will, doesn't choose to have an abortion. of course no-pro-choice person is anti-abortion, because we don't want it to be outlawed. being pro-choice doesn't mean we want abortions.

[turnkit]

Slyjokerg, I don't think I am dense but your logic really doesn't make sense to me.

How can you keep saying that "being pro-choice doesn't mean we want abortions" with a straight face?

If pro-choicers don't want to choose abortion what choice do they want?

[slyjokerg]

i can say i don't want abortions because i don't duh. simple. i have no desire for any abortion to ever take place. you don't seem to be able to distinguish that from wanting every woman to be able to choose an abortion, regardless of anyone else not wanting it. i don't want to choice abortion. i want every woman to choose for herself. you still don't get the very core issue. the woman chooses, not me, not you, not anyone else, not the government.

[turnkit]

So currently you don't want to choose abortion but you do want another women to be able to choose for abortion if she is pregnant and for her personal reasons wants to abort, right?

I feel a bit like we are walking around and around here but I am willing to try to see if there is an understanding to be had.

And if I got the above right, you don't feel that this is a "pro-abortion" position, right?

But my issue is that it is really not a neutral position towards abortion.

[slyjokerg]

first, i can't choose abortion, as i don't have a uterus. i am completely indifferent about whether an abortion actually takes place or not. not my body, not my business, not my decision. if i was a woman, i may very well have one. can't say because i'm not in that situation. not personally opposed. in the abstract, do i think abortions are great? of course not. you would have to have some sort of disorder to think that such a major, emotional, personal, intimate issue is frivolous or exciting.

[Bellator656]

...............

[Bellator656]

Personhood and rights are purely legal concepts without inherent or necessary connection to ethics. The virtue of humanity doesn't confer any inherent right to life or anything at all. All rights are political, defined and enforced by living humans for the convenience and benefit of living humans. Human life actually begins before conception, but that is irrelevant in this issue, since there is no objective point of beginning for inherent personhood (something that doesn't exist anyway).

[missamelie17]

i wonder if this woman, God forbid, had been raped if she would be saying the same thing?

[poobert]

I loved this! Good argument! I cannot wait until the next interview... I am not sure what to do until then. I guess I will pass the time with a couple of abortions. Or checkers. Not sure which will be more a more productive form of time wasting.

[eclipsedammit]

My issues with her arguments if when she starts defining "personhood". A small child or teenager may be smaller than an adult, but they also have the capability of thought and a functioning brain, nervous system, etc.

Personally I think that the issue lies in the length since conception, not conception itself. Clearly there's something wrong with abortion in the third trimester, but to compare a cluster of cells with an infant is absurd.

[ricanrosa]

As pro-choice I loved this video as a good argument on the pro-life. It was very well said. I must say I am still pro-choice because of rape and medical issues but I did like her argument and it was very well done.

Nice job!! I enjoyed watching this.

[slyjokerg]

and you censored my second message... and you most likely will not even post this message, that states that you blocked my second message in its entirety, which is very unimpressive

[turnkit]

Apologies for the delays in "approving" these messages. I didn't mean to censor your comments.

I do moderate and try to just let through non ad hominem attacks, since on this issue they are so prevalent.

[slyjokerg]

KEEP ABORTION SAFE AND LEGAL

[slyjokerg]

fuck this idiot. dehumanizing women is nothing to be proud of. desiring the implementation of fascist totalitarianism is disgusting and frightening.

the issue is not about anything other than a woman's right to choose what to do with her uterus, and not have the government mandate that she be an incumbator against her will. this bitch's diatribe about science has nothing to do with the issue. a woman can control her uterus, regardless of what jargon you use to manipulate people.

[turnkit]

Once again the pro-aborts reveal their hateful, violence side and are completely blind to their own hypocrisy.

"Slyjokerg", if why if dehumanizing women is nothing to be proud of -- and we agree on that point -- why is it that killing the unborn female is something you apparently want to be proud of?

Not allowing women to kill their own offspring makes us more human (less dehumanizing) than the animals. Do you think it is more humane to allow mothers to kill their own?

[slyjokerg]

i'm not pro-abortion. i am pro-choice. that is very basic. 0 hypocrisy on my part slugger. how is it apparent that i am proud of abortions? when did i state anything remotely like that? not allowing women to control their own reproductive systems makes us hideously oppressive and frighteningly totalitarian and fascist. do you think it is just, and shows freedom and liberty to have the government control the internal functioning of a woman's body? that idea is scary and creepy.

[turnkit]

I approved your first message despite some better judgement (due to your vulgar ad hominem attacks) because of the value in the questions it does raise.

You seem to advocate without restraint that a mother should have the right to kill her unborn. Is that correct? Did I get it wrong -- are you not wanting the woman to "proudly" do whatever she feels she wants to do with her own body and with whatever body she happens to be carrying?

Pls stop the name calling and we can have good dialog.

[slyjokerg]

no ad hominem attacks. vulgar, yes. vulgarity does not eliminate fact and veracity.

i cannot speak for another person as to what they are proud of. a woman that has an abortion is not a mother, so there is some correction called for there. if you ask me if i choose abortion rights for any reason at any stage, or no abortion rights.. i choose the former, without hesitation.

[thestreetdogg]

"slyjokerg" "reproductive systems".

No one is forcing women to have sex. They chose to have sex. Having sex could result being Pregnant.

So how irresponsible, and totalitarian, and fascist, hideously oppressive and frighteningly is to chose to start a baby and then decide to kill a baby?

The idea of killing a baby is scary, creepy and very criminal.

[angelshoulders]

AWESOME pro-life vid. Thank you for posting. You are so correct in your description of the pro-deather. The pro-aborts are very bitter,inhuman individuals who have not one ounce of compassion for anyone other then themselves.

[slyjokerg]

angel, still pathetic. no one is pro-death or pro-abortion. you ARE anti-choice. and you are the very very very bitter one. calling someone inhuman for fully supporting human rights and freedoms is asinine and childish. the compassion is oozing from our pores, while you are a supporter of totalitarian control over women's reproduction, which is disgusting. i have far more compassion than you, obviously. restricting a woman's rights in the name of gestating beings is abhorrent.

[crazytrain1889]

A 2003 public opinion poll of US citizens found that 39% agreed that the option of abortion should be available to whoever wants it. This amounts to around 120 million Americans who according to you, are bitter and inhuman. I find it difficult to believe that these people, most with families, spouses and fulfilling relationships have 'not one ounce of compassion for anyone other then themselves'. Stereotyping such a large group of people only divides the issue more, and makes you look stupid.

[thestreetdogg]

"slyjokerg" lol at ur comment. What is more Fascist, disgusting, and frightening and totalitarianism than Killing a helpless baby!? Stopping a working heart, a human heart?

What is more disgusting and frightening than is legal to kill innocent babies.

You think ur being pro women by being pro abortion, but ur not.

No one is trying to control the Uterus, or women. NO one has the right to decide for no one. Exactly babies are not coming out because they want to come out.

[11visionary11]

Banning abortion is NOT dehuminizing woamn...thats aboriton...only an inhumane individual would cruely kill their own child. And its not her uterus..its the childs.

[dg5887]

Do you expect anyone to take you serious when you start your comment off with "f this idiot"? It automatically shows your immaturity thus discrediting anything further you say. A reproductive system is just that...a reproductive system. If a woman doesn't want to reproduce she has the governments full allowance not to use her reproductive system, but once the egg is fertalized reproduction has occured and a human is in development which gives that human fetus the unalienable right to life.

[impasse0124]

This woman gives the most comprehensive and well-reasoned argument against abortion that I've ever heard. And if in fact all these principles apply to the unborn, then they also apply to people in all stages of life. I just pray that those who condone abortion watch this video and change their minds/hearts.

[standupforfreedom153]

Fellow Christians, Our rights are being threatened like never before in the history of this nation. A hate crime bill designed to eliminate the free speech of traditional Christians has passed the House and is now in the Senate as S. 909. Anyone who is opposed to homosexual marriage will be considered a hate criminal and will be prosecuted. Please call the Senate toll free and protest this grave threat to the first amendment at 1-877-851-6437. Our Constitution is threatened like never before.

[Str8keelan]

Ahaha, bro/girl, you kill me, I actually don't understand how anyone could possibly say something like this. HAHAH, i really wish you could appreciate how retarded you are. You say in the same paragraph that "our rights are being threatened" and your name is standupforfreedom, are you serious. AHAHA, if you were standing up for freedom, you would allow gay marriages to persist, you are cracked. Religion is what is wrong with the world today. Stop being a dummy ; ).

[Eastmanarium]

Stop lying, standupforfreedom.

Hate crime laws only apply to violent acts, not speech or opinion.

[How4gospel]

someone asked me to look at this thanks whoever-this lady articulates very well I pose a question to those who disagree-why do we want to destroy embryos, fetus,baby ,children,pick your own term? The answer if we are honest is most of us by nature are very selfish if we don't want something we like to throw it away we are the great disposable society there are folks like myself who can't afford $40,000 adoptions but would be happy to receive societies discards No condemnation to anyone

[SaraAsIs]

She's incredibly educated, and it's refreshing to hear a pro-life argument that doesn't consist of a southern accent slurring life as "l-a-fe", aborted fetus poster in hand. I still disagree with her though.

[ThisIDig]

So anyone with a different dialect than you is uneducated? Sounds like prejudice to me. Of course, I'm sure that never occurred to a person such as yourself - a progressive that represents the pinnacle of human progress...

[sandroeleven]

I think as products of evolution, we have the right to determine what is right for our boides.

[amayzngrace]

Yes- we are products of evolution but not from chimps yo. God planned that we would have to adapt to our changing environment. No- we don't have a right to do whatever we want with our bodies as Christians we belong to God! God's thoughts are higher than our small thoughts. He is above time. But i guess you don't know what i am talking about. Do you?

[Str8keelan]

Love your argument, except for the part about God. Because he sort of is imaginary, so that might be a bit of a barrier to your argument.

[Canbuhay]

If you are a product of evolution, then what are rights? And how do you determine what is right for your body?

[sandroeleven]

MHuman morality has always evolved...you should see the atrocious treatment of women, immigrant and children back in the 1700's.

[turnkit]

What defines "our bodies"? That's the crux of the issue.

Would most Pro-choicers say a living being with separate, unique DNA, it's own heart, own limbs, etc, is something that is a pregnant women's "own body"?

I don't think they do. I think they say that because it is so small and underdeveloped that the embryo or uterus just doesn't deserve protection.

In other words I don't think the argument is generally accepted that this about about who has power over their "own body".

[slyjokerg]

our bodies are defined by our physical being. a gestating being inside of a woman's body is a unique circumstance. the gestating being is intruding upon, and part of a woman's body. the woman's body is not inside of the gestating being, and is not intruding. the intrusion being allowed is the domain of the woman. the status of the gestating being is not the issue. if it was a 25 year old gestating inside of a woman, the situation would be precisely the same. so you misjudge the principle

[turnkit]

Isn't an unwanted newborn also intruding in a mother's space?

Is it only because a person is growing *inside* of a women which gives the women a right to terminate it's life?

[slyjokerg]

no, a newborn is not inside a mother's literally being. existing outside of her body, let's say in her house, is NOT inside her uterus. so yes, the right to end a pregnancy is derived from the reality of the gestating being, being inside of the woman's body. that is the cental issue. a blob of goo is not a person, but that argument is completely unnecessary to address when confronting the actual principle issue.

[turnkit]

Anyone who has had a child or just observes families knows that a newborn child takes away the rights of the parents over their own bodies.

Parents must wake up to assist a helpless crying newborn; they must work until the child reaches adolescence or adulthood to feed, shelter, clothe their child.

Newborns extract rights over women's bodies much longer than pre-borns.

The issue isn't whether a child can take away rights, but it's whether the pre-born are equal to the born in their rights.

[slyjokerg]

a newborn does not take a woman's right to have sex, nor to have an abortion. those are the rights in question. you don't have the right to blow someone's head off because you feel like it. rights are contingent upon circumstances. i can speed, or kill someone legally, depending on the circumstance. a woman is not literally physically affected by a born baby. a gestating being is literally inside her, and literally affects her. HUGE difference, and the very issue. inside a woman, her choice

[shesmadeleine]

yuck

[sockrahtease]

I liked the video. But. The moderator looks a little beady-eyed and... lol.

[joeglimmix]

impressive...she is schooling this man on 6th grade biology. i am learning so much

[keith2882]

Some very interesting points that I wasn't aware of. Thanks

[OmniNorth]

Stephanie Gray is a very articulate spokesperson for the pro-life cause. Does give talks in Vancouver, British Columbia?

[lalalmn]

Just like toddler and adolescent refer to different stages of HUMAN development so do fetus and embryo!

[lalalmn]

A woman does have a right to choose(protection and birthcontrol) If she doesn't take responsibility then oh well she has to have the baby! If we are uncertain of when life begins then the benifit of the doubt should go to preserving life! Scientist and medical textbokks say life begins at conception!

[ajaxsf]

What an impressive young woman. Very well spoken.

[AnthonyBlunt]

Thank for this awesome video. She is doing great work!

[hudson1959]

so if I'm unconscious, I'm no longer alive? Can I be killed?

[hschan4]

A woman should have the right to choose whether she wants to have a child or not, no one else should decide for her! and no the fetus is not alive, you have to be concsious to be alive..

[turnkit]

Interesting thinking. So when is a baby "alive" then? At what age is it conscious in your thinking? There are many problems that come about by redefining "life" to mean whatever you want it to mean. Fortunately medical science has more objective determinations--i.e. easily agreed upon methods--to say when a human is alive.

[hschan4]

Are we talking about actual objective medical science here? Or are we talking about science that favours your pro-life line of thinking... Anyway none of it matters, it is a woman's choice, she has dominion over her own body, no one else can tell her what to do with it.

[davidcorigliano]

The baby is not part of the woman's body.

[victorpanlilio]

Exactly. The baby is a separate, unique human being. Right?

[hschan4]

So you think medical science supports your side of the argument is that what you are saying?

[hschan4]

Well it does not matter, abortion is legal on all grounds in Canada, so you have lost, give it up and concentrate on something worthwhile like saving the millions of actual ALIVE children in Africa. They weren't aborted and now they need your help since they are subjected to a life of starvation, disease, and poverty...

[johannine]

She's not advocating neglect for other injustices in the world. But ALL living children deserve to be protected, and guess what, the unborn ARE ALIVE. Even if you don't consider them human, they're still a living organism, and that is an undeniable medical fact.

[bubblecharts]

Right concsious, you mean awake. So if you are not concsious you can be killed.

You can kill in someones sleep?? Because you are not concsious in sleep??

[Pwells1]

Exactly. It's NOT a religious issue or a constitutional issue. It's an ethical issue, and all the ethics and science are on the pro life side. ALL OF IT.

[hschan4]

Uhh I don't know if you have ever taken science, maybe you went to a Catholic school where they didn't teach it, but science is totally objective, it does not have any ethical stance whatsoever. So by saying that Science is on the pro-life side is complete bullshit, IT HAS NO SIDE.

[Gabrielus23]

Josef Mengele would agree with you.

[Absolute21Truth]

So, speaking scientifically, what would a scientist call a one-celled living organizm on Mars? My guess..."We've found LIFE on Mars!" Your 'scientific' response might be "but the one-celled organizm is surviving on its own." My response, "at what point does the human being gain the ability to survive on its own? At birth? Can a 1-year-old survive without any help? Science clearly supports the FACT that life begins at just one objective point in time: conception."

[naturemum]

"Can we kill in order to deal with hard life circumstances?" <--- Greatest line, ever.

[silvermoon577]

Love it! Go PRO-LIFE!

[turnkit]

Well said... but I would challenge all you "Pro-Life" Canadians to respond with word and deed. The staff at Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (such as Stephanie Gray) as supported by "viewers like you"... so won't you google them and support her work if you find it compelling? She is reaching a lot of people... something to consider. Your donation can send her voice much further.

[teton99]

You tube Gianna Jessen

[DeanClark68]

I like people who respect life.

[hschan4]

I would like to end your life..

[fairychild16]

This is a wonderful interview. How can people think that an embryo isnt a human being? The baby is a life from the moment it is conceived.

[anm30]

Wow she said it all!!! PRO-LIFE~

[kiekie84]

GREAT GREAT GREAT!!! I LOVE IT!!! YOU SAID IT AND YOU SAID IT WELL BROV now i know what to say!

[1hmm2]

I support your candidacy for President, if you choose it. The most important issue for me is furthering the Pro-Life cause. God bless.

A Canadian.

[hschan4]

your a disgrace to the social values of Canada...

[1hmm2]

I greatly commend Stephanie Gray. You are a gifted, courageous, noble, honourable, intelligent young leader of Canadian society. Keep on doing what you're doing, don't stop when those who resort to killing innocent children to get what they want heckle you. God bless.

[orianagold]

Wonderful articulate girl! She is doing a good work. The act of abortion is a violent, murderous travesty. Just look at an ultrasound to see all the features of a small, innocent human being in its earliest stages of development. They can hear and feel pain. There is no excuse for killing an unborn child.

[SerenaSarah]

Good thoughts!