Because the woman doesn't want to, that's what wrong with forcing women to give birth. WHY should any woman give up 9 months of her life, suffer the harm pregnancy does to her body, endure the pain of pregnancy and childbirth , suffer financial loss, possible job loss, career and educational setbacks all to give someone else a kid and make YOU feel all warm and fuzzy and self righteous ! That would be STUPID! YOU wouldn't do it....
Obviously, pro-life refers to the issue of abortion. Of human life. How can you've confused that with plants and bacteria? We're talking about ABORTION, aren't we? I've never heard of abortion being applied to plants......have you? Btw, where do you think you are right now? We're here on planet earth, are we not? I know I am..... Hello? Anybody there?
What is wrong in stopping another person injuring you without consent, even to the extent of using deadly force .. would you allow another person to injure you for nine months without any means to stop it?
"Pro-lifers" have shown repeatedly that the only life they care about is theirs and the fetus ...they do not care for women poor children that's for damn sure...
Another obfuscation. Pro-Life does not refer to "Human Life" in general. It does not refer to sperm, or skin cells or other human cells - each of which is human life. Pro-Lifers are masters at using the descriptive adjective use of the word "Human" as you do in your post, as if it equals the noun form (a human). The term Pro-Life is then obviously NOT intended to refer to "Human Life in general" It is intended to refer to "A human, baby, unborn child" And this is precisely why it is an obfuscation because this assumed premise is fallacy.
It would be interesting to get a response just once from my explanation of the "facts of life" to those who think pregnancy is nothing worse than having a cold. They demean , denigrate, belittle, minimize what their mothers and wives went through and when the truth is pointed out to them they just clam up and hope nobody notices how totally and completely wrong they are so they can continue their attack on women......
I agree with you. I wasn't just clear enough to say "human unborn baby"........but I thought that's understood.... after all ....... .......we do not abort an adult or a 2 year old out of a woman, do we? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obfuscate Obviously....you're the one obfuscating! The term, "abortion" should've made it clear enough that by "pro-life," would mean that of the life of an UNBORN HUMAN BABY. Isn't that clear and simple enough?
Pro-choicers had also come up with this silly reasoning that women are endangering themselves when they give birth. How is that? Child birth is natural. Women are naturally built for childbirth! What is un-natural, is, abortion. Without modern technology, more women would be dying when they have abortion than when they give birth! And because of modern technology, giving birth is safer than ever!
I've also encountered ridiculous attempt at justification by bringing up statistics! Apparently, according to some stats, a woman is 14 (fourteen) times more likely to die from childbirth than abortion. Pro-choice tries to scare women from carrying a baby to full-term, and giving birth! How sick is that? Statistically, 1 in 4,404 people will die via asphyxiation from choking on food, so you are better off being afraid of your brunch. 1 out of every 5,862 people will die in aviation-related accidents while 1 in every 272 people will die in an automobile accident.....let's ban the automobile! A person is far more likely to die falling out of bed, a chair or other furniture at home than traveling on a railway, where the odds are 1 in 225,879. But trading two wheels for two feet is not any safer. Statistically, you are better off riding a motorcycle than walking on a busy street. The three U.S. cities with the most pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 residents every year are Atlanta, Ga., with 10.97, Detroit, Mich., with 10.31 and Los Angeles, Calif., with 7.64. Pedestrian fatalities are more likely to occur in large cities with heavy traffic. Stroke - Odds of dying: 1 in 28 So what do we do? Bottom line: No one, and nothing can guarantee you absolute safety. Anyway.....is that how we now see women? As WIMPS? Throwing that stats around as a justification to kill a human being is........pathetic.
It's clear and simple enough that a fetus is "human" life not "A human" but Anti-Choicers still get the two confused.
You ask if women are wimps....why? Did you finally realize what they go through with pregnancy and child birth? And "wimp"...Definition: one who can't face addressing posts but insists women just shut up and stay pregnant...
Speaking of stats! Yes, let's bring up stats! https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/contraception What with all the traumas and dramas involved if one gets an unwanted pregnancy, so many women still don't get it. And their supporters don't seem to get it, too. BOTTOMLINE: a woman can get pregnant by having sexual intercourse. If you don't want to get pregnant, use protection or don't have sex. Some women use multiple protections (insist on the guy to use a condom - against getting std, and the woman also have a form of contraceptives as well - pill and/or other methods). A sensible woman wouldn't entrust her future to the hands of her sex partner - relying that he'll have a condom. Why do you think for all the money spent to combat HIV and AIDS, those stds are still rampant? And look at all the senseless reasonings by the supporting public to try to justify the killings of infants and exenorate the woman from all blame. So, as expected ......we come full circle to the title of this thread. Dysfunctional minds prop pro-choice!
Dysfunctional minds think that women must be controlled and forced to give birth because they had sex....Anti-Choicer described to perfection. Dysfunctional minds insist erroneously and stupidly that infants are killed in abortion. Dysfunctional minds don't know that women are under no obligation to use birth control. Dysfunctional minds think human nature will change by saying "should" a lot... What were you trying to prove with your stats?
I'd suggest you look up what natural means, if you are saying that child birth is "natural" then you cannot assert that a fetus is a person, once the fetus becomes a person it loses any semblance of being natural, the word natural refers to processes that occur without human intervention, if a person becomes involved in these processes they are no longer legally considered natural but are caused, at least in part, by human agency. It is ironic therefore that the pro-life forces and others that say the fetus must be considered to be a person that contradicts any depiction of pregnancy as natural. To the extent that pregnancy is initiated and maintained by an entity that is a person, it is a product of human agency, not the product of a force of nature.
Yes let us bring up some stats, like the reason for these figures .. pro-lifers and right wing conservatives stopping comprehensive sex education in schools and fighting against free at source contraception of all types. 6 of the top 10 states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates are states with predominately abstinence only sex education, add to this the false economy of providing condoms for free, which have a typical usage failure rate of 18% against the 0.8% typical failure usage rate of an IUD. The cost of ten years of condoms is more than the cost of an IUD which lasts ten years. You are also under the misconception that consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, you have been challenged to debate that and have run away every single time.
Nature didn't care about consent! Consent does not matter after the fact! Bottom line: Sexual intercourse can cause pregnancy...... ........whether you consent to it, or not! .....the 65% who use a contraceptive method consistently and correctly account for only 5% of unintended pregnancies. If you don't want an unwanted pregnancy, make damn sure you use precaution CONSISTENTLY! Don't give your consent to sex if you're not protected! Simple as that. Only a moronic woman wouldn't get that.
"""Nature didn't care about consent!"" But the law does. """Only a moronic woman wouldn't get that.""" Your misogynism is noted. Women have a right to have sex whenever they want...sad for you but no law will stop them You are also under the misconception that consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, you have been challenged to debate that and have run away every single time
I agree. They say things like "Women are not like breeding livestock". But then turn around and say that humans have an animal-like nature and can't be expected to control themselves. I'm serious. I've seen pro-choicers here try to argue until they're blue in the face that humans are animals (to avoid the concept of personal accountability) and then other pro-choicers insist that women are not animals and have a right to decide for themselves. Well, which is it? Seems the pro-choice crowd is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want the responsibility of being able to decide for themselves, but not the personal accountability that comes with that recognition of responsibility. Women are lustful animals who cannot control their instincts one moment and then mature human beings who can be relied upon to make the right decision for themselves the next moment. Almost comical when you actually sit down to examine it. I think you were right, the pro-choice argument twists itself into a pretzel of conflicting logic and different assertions that are not all coherent. Oh, there's more. It's a baby if the woman wants it, but if she doesn't want it it's just an insignificant clump of cells. One person here actually blatantly came out and said "The worth of the fetus is entirely dependent on how much value the woman places on it", and proceeded to try to argue their point. It's almost like a carnival show.
In forums, I crack up laughing when they insist on calling the unborn a, "zygote," or a "zef, or a "fetus." In everyday life - who calls the unborn that? Have you ever heard anyone say (whether she's a pro-choice supporter, or not)....."mommy has a zygote in her tummy?" Everybody calls the unborn, BABY!
Corrections: those who think women are above all, and should be given special license to kill. That would be the Pro-Choice.
Another dysfunctional example: Pro-choice are confused with the term/phrase, "EQUALITY," and "HUMAN RIGHTS." Their position is contradictory to what they're supposed to be fighting for. How can you fight for so-called equality when you stripped a human of his rights and dignity? Nothing different about how slavery was with Black people - they were stripped of their dignity, and labeled "sub-human." And much similar how Hitler stripped the Jews of their rights and dignity....and made it legal to oppress and slaughter them! Pro-choice had stripped the human unborn of his dignity and rights as a human being......and made it legal to oppress and slaughter them. Pro-choice is the present-day NAZISM! They can deny that til they're blue in the face....but the clear comparison is there. The convoluted attempt to rationalize the pro-choice position is almost funny, except that we're looking at slaughter.... ................much, much worse than the holocaust, in scale.
How is having the right to self defense "above all"....all people have the right to self defense....Anti-Choicers want to take away that basic right from women... Bodily autonomy is "above all" ? What "special license"? Women have the right to their own bodies, they don't need a special license.....YOU don't need a special license to defend yourself ....
