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

Agreed, have got to say as well that so far Herk has been on of the few who want to discuss the subject without resorting to the usual muck flinging.

 

What's muck flinging?

 

Do you really think that just saying "garbage" means anything, how about putting up some evidence to support your opinion that "The pill was by far the biggest change in the world at the time"

Define "traditional family", do you mean traditional American family or one of the other types of traditional family throughout the world and if you are defining a traditional family under the American model, why should that be the one that all others follow?

 

I'm not going to write an essay on something that would take an essay to prove. Some comments here (most, actually) are just opinions and I was just stating mine, unpopular as it is. By traditional family I meant two parents and I never said ANYTHING about others having to follow it. So touchy....

 

In lieu of an essay, here is a graph that shows a link between oral contraception and divorce rates. I don't think there is a big leap between the feminist movement of the sixties and the introduction of the pill. Do you Fugazi? Take this graph and add to it the fact that women initiate two thirds of divorces and I think there is a pretty clear link between the breakdown of the two parent family and oral contraception. It will be a wonderful day when women will admit this because in my experience they don't.

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

Can you actually prove that oral contraception is the cause of divorce?

 

I suggest you look a little more closely at your history, abortion did not become illegal in the US until the 19th Century prior to that the unborn had no right to life. in fact if you look a little closer you will find that no person born or unborn has the right to life, a 'right' indicates something that cannot be taken away and as we all know to well that is not the case, life is taken away every single day .. now of course some will say it is only done with justification, but surely that means we do not have a right to life at all, we have life because someone else decides not to take it away .. if something can be taken away regardless of the reasoning then it really isn't a right.

Do most people think that, the right to retribution supercedes the right to life otherwise there would be no death penalty, wars would not happen and self-defence would be murder.

How can you return a right that they never had?

 

Then you will have no problem if your right to "liberty" is removed, after all it's only 'convenience' isn't it.

Whose morals .. yours, why should your morals be the de facto standard?

 

Probably, but as I said to a previous poster it would take more effort than is warranted for a post on a political website. I think common sense tells me that although not the sole cause of marital breakdown, the introduction of oral contraception and the subsequent feminist movement was the single biggest cause of the massive increase in divorce rates. I have yet to see any compelling evidence (and I've looked) that there was anything else significant that led to the huge increase. One thing I've noticed though is how women really get their backs up about this when what I'm saying is NOT sexist because I'm not advocating that there is anything bad about the result, merely that there is a link.

 

I honestly don't believe that the use of contraceptives has any link to the divorce rate, in fact I think the use of it would allow couples to control the number and timing of their kids better and thus allow them to have a more stable relationship.

Like you said though this is a whole other issue that would require some thorough research not only in current divorce rates but in the use of birth control and how it affects people's relationships.

 

How does "liberty" justify killing a child for convenience reasons? It doesn't.

 

Nope, the objective is to allow a woman to decide if she wishes to allow her body to be used by another in an unconsented fashion.

Pretty much the same for any life, born or not, it only has as much value as another places upon it.

Nope, the point is that no person should be expected to be forced to remain pregnant or forced to have abortion, hence why it is pro-choice.

She is superior, without her it would die and yes she does have the absolute right to decide whether to remain pregnant and allow the injuries pregnancy causes or the right to procure a remedy to those injuries, it's just an unfortunate conclusion that the fetus will die.

THat is entirely up to the woman, it is after all her body that is being injured during the pregnancy, would any other person in any other circumstances allow those injuries to occur without consent.

It is a de facto conclusion of making abortion illegal that it will take away an already established right in favor of a right that has never been established, add to that-that it would stop a woman from defending herself against unconsented injury and the conclusion has to be that it is a form of control .. that may not be the objective of the pro-life movement, but it is the outcome.

How do you know they want your protection, or is it just an assumption?

 

So in essence you don't actually have any evidence.

Yep a lot of comments are opinions, however it is well within the realms of debates to request evidence to support an opinion.

Then you traditional family is based on preconception of what one is, does that "two parents" extend to same sex parents?

You allude to the fact that the traditional family (as you see it) was better than we have now .. I was just trying to get a handle on what you percieve as a traditional family.

 

I think the chart although not perfect is a piece of evidence. I haven't brought up the issue of same sex parents but I have no issue at all with that and see it as a completely different topic. NOWHERE did I allude to the traditional family as better than we have now. Show me where I alluded to that because I'd love to see it. Interesting also would be any evidence of something else that caused these huge increases in divorce rates. Even your opinion would be nice.

 

Could you post the source of this graph please, I would be interested to look at the methodology employed .. BTW you do know that divorce rates have been dropping since the 1980's

View attachment 23246

You do also realize that you have completely ignored the other relevant factors involved in divorce rates, such as the decrease in a woman's reliance on a man due to their increase in employment, the introduction of domestic violence laws (prior to which there was no law against a man raping his wife).

Here is another interesting, though unrelated, graph for you



Seems that as global temperature rises there are more pirates .. I hope you understand the reason for posting it.

Why should women admit to something that assumes correlation = causation.

 

Pro-life isn't anti-woman-it's pro-fetus.

 

Evidence please.

Liberty - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views.

This constant inane usage of the word "convenience" really only betrays your complete lack of understanding or knowledge of the subject.

 

Before I lift a finger sourcing the graph, I'd love to see the figures outlining the divorce rate drop.

 

Most women have abortions either because having a child is too emotionally stressful, or too inconvenient for them.

I'm sorry, but you can't justify killing a child just because being a parent is emotionally stressful or inconvenient. Women who have abortions are no different than Casey Anthony.

 

Prove Casey Anthony killed her daughter when she was acquitted by a jury of her peers or stop making the false comparison. In fact stop continuing to make this false comparison on the grounds that killing a born person with intent and malice is not even remotely on the same level as ending a pregnancy.

 

Then how about Susan Smith or Andrea Yates? And yes, it is very much on the same level.

 

Don't you know how it works .. you made the premise that the pill and divorce rates are linked, up to you to provide the relevant evidence to support it, with the sources of that evidence.

Sources for divorce rates falling

http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy441/trends/divorce.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-n-cohen/family-meet-the-new-reces_b_149768.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...death-and-life-of-marriage-in-america/252640/

or if you prefer your data in figure format - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005044.html

- - - Updated - - -

no need to be sorry Sam you can't help it being wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

In your opinion .. now how about providing evidence to support that opinion, as in why they are "very much on the same level"