~ MOD ALERT ~ Why is Pro-Life seen as Anti-Woman?

How do you know for sure? For the sake of arguement, jumpers don't have an interest in being alive, but it isn't the common norm to stand on a street looking up and yelling jump or even to continue to walk by. Instead, people try to save these lives.

 

Why is pro-choice seen as anti-baby?

 

Pro-life hyperbole

The fact remains that the very label pro-choice means that each and every woman should have the individual choice whether to continue the pregnancy or not, we are not trying to force laws through that say a woman MUST have an abortion where as pro-lifers are trying to force laws through that say a woman MUST remain pregnant and give birth.

Which of the above do you think stands for the rights of the individual?

 

Pro-lifers. They stand for the rights of the unborn.

 

Look up the definitions of pro and life .. I have, you will find that the definitions do not add up to what you conclude.

Pro - An argument or consideration in favor of something
Life - The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

In respect to those definitions, pro-life would mean in favor of ALL life and as seen that is not the case for most 'pro-lifers', a far better term would be pro-birth or pro-pregnancy.

 

You would probably be correct with about 98% of the men.

 

- - - Updated - - -

Without regard to the life of the mother? How's that pro-life?

 

Only a very small percentage of abortions happen to save the life of the mother. The vast majority of abortions happen for purely convenience/selfish reasons.

 

Geez, it isn't rocket science. The fetus has never known life, so how could it even know to want life? Even if the fetus could think, which it can't.

And how do you know for sure?

And besides, they are already born, obviously suffering from some painful experience which with counseling may restore their desire to live.

Your analogy doesn't hold.

 

So that small percentage is not important enough?

And most happen within the first trimester, which most states have established laws that restrict elective abortions to that period. I would prefer that elective abortions be restricted to the first two months, because sometimes it takes that long to figure out that you are pregnant. The life of the mother being at risk should not be restricted to the first tri-mester, and most pro-lifers don't even believe in that being a factor, and leave it out of their platform and bills that want to do away with Roe v Wade.

 

How does that very small percentage of abortions justify the vast majority of abortions?

 

yes

Because otherwise where and how do you draw the line?

And this is the question which is NEVER answered - where do you draw the line?

 

I don't get exactly what your question is. Please be more specific for me.

 

Who decides when the danger is acute/serious enough to warrant an abortion and when is it indicated

 

That would be the pregnancy minister installed in every hospital in some future pro-life utopia, someone with no real medical qualifications, but plenty of experience of "gods morality" who could decide purely on manufactured evidence whether it was acceptable to over rule the government enforced laws, and if the women should die they can answer "hey never mind, after all the fetus is far more important than the breeding chamber it came from"

 

The fetus has obviously never known life as we know it, but that doesn't mean he or she doesn't have the natural instinct of survival. Sure, they don't know what it's like to swing on a swingset, go for a walk, watch a sunset, or get excited about the holidays. Again, these are limited concepts of life, but not life itself. A fetus can still, and I believe he or she does, have the natural instinct of survival.

Okay, things such as standing on the ledge making statements to the effect of not wanting to live any longer, it's not worth it, they can't go on and they are going to jump, lead me to believe they don't want to live, especially in the cases in which they jump.

The only difference being they are already born? I agree, though, they can restore their desire to live through counseling and other measures.

It does for someone who supports human life consistently or as consistently as possible.

 

Or, instead of a minister and God's morality, we could just rely on the fallible morality of man and the decision within a pro-choice utopia in which anything may be considered risky to the health of the mother. You wrote it yourself, government enforced laws. How can we defend liberty while the government is enforcing laws resulting in death?

I really don't believe people against abortion care ONLY about the life of the fetus and not the mother. I also don't believe people against abortion believe women are merely breeding chambers. I believe life is sacred across the board including the mother and the unborn. Wether one is pro-life or pro-choice, it shouldn't be too hard to see abortion is a difficult situation and the controversey is emotionally charged. Do you really believe people who support the life of the unborn completely disregard and don't care about the lives of women?

 

The followers of the pro-life movement not so much, but the religious and political leaders of the pro-life movement I would say YES, absolutely.

 

For those who you believe absolutely do this, do you believe their goal is to forsake women and disregard them or do you believe they view the unborn as human life and therefore protect this life?

As far as your belief of political leaders doing this, I assume you are referring to the laws they make or try to make. As far as religious leaders go, what are you referring? Do you have an example?

 

If protecting the unborn inherently forsakes the freedoms of the woman carrying the unborn...it does not truly matter what the goal is. It is exceedingly clear that a large part of the pro-life mentality has it's basis in religious belief, thinking otherwise seems rather naïve, and much of the political and legislative push to remove the abortion option is also obviously religiously motivated.

A politician who goes against the constituency is unlikely to be re-elected, if this individual is in the Bible belt....he is likely Pro-Life, and will be celebrated when passing laws that limit abortion.

 

Please tell me ANY law that forces a woman to have an abortion?

I humbly suggest you read some of the comments in this very forum where pro-lifers have stated that why should they care if some woman dies from an illegal abortion.

And you are quite right it isn't just about caring only about the fetus, it's also about controlling women.

 

Pro-choicers are mean people. At least me (a pro-lifer) never puts words into the mouths of others.

Yes, banning abortion makes it illegal for women to kill unborn children. That's the ONLY WAY that banning abortions controls women.

All me (and Unifier) said was that reducing abortion rates is far more important than making sure that abortions are safe for women.

 

Show me your evidence that making abortion illegal reduces them, and you have on at least three separate occasions misrepresented what I have said, or as you put it "put words into my mouth".

 

And you know this because?

They may not want to live at that very moment, but you cannot say that you know for a fact that if they are prevented and counseled that they will not change their mind and actually want to live.

Being born and not being born, big difference.

Many fertilized eggs are flushed out by the woman's body and I don't see pro-lifers making a big hoopla about investing in research to find out how to prevent this. Are those "zygotes" not considered important? After all, they have been conceived. Likewise, a clump of cells at the onset of pregnancy cannot be considered a person or compared to a person that is already born, or even a fetus that is viable.

 

What is so nice about putting an embryo's or fetus' life ahead of a grown woman's?

First of all, they are not children. Learn the actual names for the various stages. And banning abortion will make it impossible for a woman whose life is at risk to choose her life over that of her zygote, embryo or fetus. So, it is a control.

If you ban abortion, you are not only going to reduce abortion rates, you are going to zero them out, including those abortions that may be necessary due to the danger to the mother if the pregnancy is allowed to continue. Do you really want to do that? I think maybe more reasonable controls over them is what we need, and already there are pretty strict controls.