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

Are you implying the morality of the Lord is fallible?

 

Only if playing favorites with a created race and having the favorites slaughter the others (and even vice versa) could possibly be considered amoral. What do you think?

 

Did He play favorites with a created race?

 

Why do I have to educate you in bible basics? Ever hear of the "chosen people"?

 

You don't have to and yes I have.

 

No your war on woman only kicks in when they become able to get pregnant, prior to that they are not "women" they are female children, and no real threat to the control mentality of the typical pro-lifer.

What future is 'stolen', the same future of the 1/4 of fertilized eggs that do not implant.

I also see you are under the impression, like so many other pro-lifers, that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, sorry but even your own courts disagree with you on that .. sex merely creates a risk of pregnancy and no person is expected to suffer injury because the took a risk, and pregnancy is an injury as your courts have already declared in some circumstances.

 

Abortion is a form of birth control as it controls birth.

I believe all women have a right to abortion for any reason at all, no questions asked, no judgment passed.

 

I would say it is. Since the God of the Bible not only allows but has a list of rules for how to treat your slaves (don't you think a real moral deity would say, no slaves at all?), I would say 'His' word is very fallible. We also don't believe it is acceptable to stone people to death for certain behaviors anymore either. The list is a lot longer but I think these two examples are good enough to show just how fallible the word of 'God' is.

 

Are you aware that late-term fetuses feel pain?

 

Yes I am aware. Does it matter if they feel pain or not? If they are anesthetized/numbed before they are killed does that suddenly make it acceptable to kill them in your view? If no then I think the pain factor is a rather moot point.

 

Even if they were numbed before they were killed, it still shouldn't be legal to abort third trimester fetuses.

Am I "sexist" or "anti-woman" for saying that?

 

nope just deluded

 

Where do you draw the line, between me being "just deluded" and me being "anti-woman/sexist"?

 

So clearly the pain factor is a moot point as I already pointed out.

Why do you ask? Do you think you are?

 

I don't think that I'm sexist or "anti-woman". I ask because some pro-choicers accuse me of being sexist.

 

Oh ok. I don't think you are sexist Sam. I just think you have a very sheltered view about reality and real world problems that women face. You're also still learning and forming strong opinions of your own and debate is one way to do that. It's how I learned to form and build my own opinions and of course our own personal experiences will shape our view of the world.

Obviously we are going to have two very different experiences from a sex perspective as you are male and I am female. As a woman I will more than likely experience pregnancy and childbirth someday (and possibly an abortion for a number of reasons) so I think I take this issue more personally because it is one that can and does directly affect me because of my gender as well.

But I don't think our disagreement of opinions makes you sexist or makes me a radical feminist or any other negatively charged terms we could sling at one another. I think we just have different experiences and very different perspectives.

 

Roe vs Wade and the legalization of abortion has been an unmitigated failure and harmful to women in many ways. From higher unintended pregnancies and more abortions to higher illegitimacy rates and unwanted children. I don't see how liberals could consider this a success.

 

As all of the above has been disproved on many occasions it would be pointless to ask you for any proof to support it .. there isn't any, well apart from the rabid pro-life sites that is, and we all know how "honest" they are.

Lets just check the items you listed;

Unintended pregnancies - Prior to 1970 the social standard of "shot-gun weddings" for women who got pregnant while unmarried was the norm. Women succumbed to these weddings due to the pariah status thrust upon them for having sex outside of marriage, with the introduction of contraception and abortion this pariah status began to decline as did shot-gun weddings, this is one of the reasons that the unintended pregnancy figure rose, women did not have to fear the stigma of being a single mother and men could engage in sexual encounters without proclaiming marriage vows. Any child born into a shot-gun marriage was NOT seen as an unintended pregnancy.

More abortions - Do you mean legal abortions, because of course there was a rise in abortions after the procedure became legal, that is just common sense .. what is also interesting to note is that illegal abortions declined as did maternal mortality rates after abortion was declared legal. It is also interesting to note that when the USA is compared with two of it's nearest countries, Brazil and Canada, both of which are complete opposites in abortion restrictions, with Brazil having the most restrictive laws and Canada having the most liberal that Brazil's estimated abortion rate is far higher than the USA while Canada's rate is LOWER than the USA, it would seem from that evidence that restrictions have little to no effect on abortion on the whole.

Higher illegitimacy rates - Yep gone are the restrictions placed on women, they are now more free to engage in what ever they so wish, they don't need a man to be the "head of the household", the bread winner while they play the little house wife at home. Also the the item mentioned above ie shot-gun weddings declined.

unwanted children - If as you declare that so many children are unwanted why have your adoption rates fallen since 1970. In 1970 there were 175,000 adoptions, where as in 2000 there were 127,985, and in 2008 135,813

Well considering that there are far less maternal deaths caused by illegal abortions and women have been liberated from being the "property" of men, I'd say there has been some success, now of pro-lifers would leave sex education and contraception alone I'm sure the success would grow.

- - - Updated - - -

Deluded because you don't offer anything to support your opinion, you just keep repeating the same fallacies over and over again.

Sexist based on the comments you have made in this forum.

 

I apologized for calling women sluts. What else makes me a sexist?

 

already done this I am not going to repeat myself just so you can around in circles

 

That's hard to believe when over half of all women who have an abortion say they have used a contraceptive during the month they became pregnant. There is nothing wrong with their bodies....Their bodies are doing a key part of what the function of the female body of the human species was built to do and, against all odds to boot!

Apparently at least 50% of the female population isn't up to speed on their own normal, inherent bodily functions.

 

I don't believe less pain makes it acceptable, but I find it ironic measures are taken to euthanize a dog as painlessly as possible, yet, it seems to not matter that humans being euthanized fee pain. Often, this is at both ends of the life spectrum and in between. And I write this as a dog lover. I believe the pain issue is a good point as it demonstrates the often callus mentality and lack of concern of abortion supporters for pain and human suffering.

 

Do you believe abortion should be used for birth control, not included the life of the mother exception, up until the last trimester, including the 40th week?

 

War on women?

I will not engage in hyperbole. Do you have other talking points besides parroting liberal wind bags
A fetus, by definition, is a potential person. What else could it be? An elephant, a leopard, perhaps a praying mantis.

Potential: capable of development into actuality

Sounds like a future to me. Abortion terminates the fetus' potential for personhood.

Honestly are these the best arguments the "abortificionados" can come up with.

Here's the conversation:

"I value this future person's existence, whether they are male or female"

response

"you hate women, sure when it's a little baby and all cute, you like them, but a real woman, you hate them"

The very same woman seeking an abortion was once a fetus herself, and I would be defending her right to exist also. What I will not defend is her alleged right to terminate the potential of the fetus who is guilty of nothing but having the bad luck to be attached to an irresponsible person. Blind luck basically, is what survival comes down to, you win the lottery if your Mom happens to actually care enough to bring you to term. Is that anyway to begin a life? Breaking into a cold sweat when "Mommy dearest" passes a "clinic." "Uh oh, Mommy's gonna abort me today."

As far as "the court's say it's ok"

The courts dictate morality?
The same courts which for over a century ruled that slavery was perfectly acceptable.

The courts may dictate law, but they do not dictate morality and ethics.
Heck the courts said women had no right to vote until the women suffrage organized and appealed to have the laws changed.

The courts indeed, your appeal to authority is over-ruled.
Next fallacy?

 

Secular Progressives believe the courts dictate morality because they (Secular Progressives) reject America's Judeo-Christian philosophical morals and values. They practice moral relativity which is everyone having their on version of morality, basic morals and values that may or may not agree with one another. Moral relativity is the rule of the day and social morality is adjudicated not personally internalized.