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

I seriously give up. I honestly think you guys just want to keep dragging these topics off course and intentionally ruin the debate for everyone by taking it personally.

hiimjered, a MOD, was already in here deleting a load of posts and trying to get this topic back on course. Clearly he sees nothing wrong with having an OPEN DISCUSSION about why certain positions come across a certain way.

But you all keep taking it personally when it's not personal at all but very general, or making it personal on purpose with the intent to derail the topic, to troll, to be inflammatory and to try and get people you simply don't like banned.

It's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid, it's very obvious and we all know you're doing it.

 

We can discuss this via PM, so that it doesnt' derail the discussion.

 

Yes I do. I have given ample reason. If you google the term....there are thousands of articles from both sides of the aisle that use the term.

It is a term that I have used here since coming. It is a term that has been allowed...even in the thread title.

You don't hesitate using anti-woman do you? Most the others don't. I am not anti-woman...yet that term is allowed on here and it is negative.

Not fair..nothing will change.

I have replaced it because I am not going to use pro-choice...the child in the womb does not have a choice...the position doesn't give it a choice. And because I have gotten in trouble all of a sudden for using it...(have no idea what is allowable anymore waiting to get a list of banned words and phrases) I have to come up with something different.

Answer this.....does abortion kill?
What does abortion kill?
Why do you oppose the killing label?
If there is something wrong with abortion, why defend it?
If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why not embrace it for what it is. Abortion is killing a living human being.

So how can I be told not to say...when women have abortions...they don't kill anything? The fact is THEY DO.

Women kill something inside them when they hire an abortionist. The abortionist kills the life.

That is the truth. And I should be allowed to say it freely and not walk around on pins and needles.

 

This is all I have to say to you in THIS thread at this time.

- - - Updated - - -

No Sam. All I want to do is have a discussion about the Original Post. I don't want to discuss what words we can and cannot use here. I am so sick of it.

 

Yes, but it's so unfair. Please don't call pro-lifers "anti-woman".

 

This is ridiculous.

 

Gross misrepresentation .. pro-choicers just don't want other people deciding what is a private individual choice. Pro-choicers don't want the minority to impose their views onto the majority. Pro-choicer want to keep the government out of a womans womb.

 

You seem to assume that a majority of Americans are pro-choice. According to the most recent poll I found, the opposite is true.

Regardless, I'd say that most pro-lifers don't care at all about what the woman does with her uterus. Most of them believe a woman should be free to do as she wishes to her uterus - as long as she doesn't harm the baby that she put inside there. The focus of most pro-lifers isn't the woman's body, it is the baby's life.

Perhaps that is the reason for why pro-choicers think that pro-lifers are anti-woman. Pro-choicers seem to be focused on the woman, pro-lifers focus on the child. When the rights of the two come into conflict, a pro-lifer would see someone trying to protect the baby as being anti-woman and a pro-choicer would see someone protecting the woman's rights as being anti-baby.

 

The vast majority (70%) of Americans want Roe v. Wade upheld:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-wade-anniversary-most-want-decision-to-stay/

If that were true, pro-lifers would push for policies known to reduce abortion--comprehensive sex education and free or easily available contraception. However, they reject those policies, and instead favor laws and policies that have no effect on the number of abortions, but punish women. Overwhelming evidence shows that criminalizing abortion does not affect the abortion rate, but does increase maternal deaths. Waiting periods and mandatory invasive transvaginal ultrasounds have not been shown to change women's minds, but are degrading to women.

Abortion doesn't kill babies or children, and those terms are used for the purpose of emotional appeal. Pro-choicers prefer scientific terminology to accurately describe the stages of development when abortions are performed. Over half of abortions are performed by the 8th week, the embryonic stage, and 90% are performed by the 12th week. Only 1% of abortions are performed after the 21st week, the majority for fetuses with conditions incompatible with life, and other medical reasons.

 

Sorry, but just one more thing...A woman doesn't "put the baby inside there." That is blaming the pregnancy entirely on the woman, just like "She got herself pregnant," and "She shouldn't have spread her legs."

 

She is just as responsible as the father is. No one is suggesting that he doesn't bear responsibility for the child. He will also be required to fulfill his obligations that came from that act.

 

Many pro-lifers do push for non-abortion options, such as contraception and responsible behavior. In fact most do.

As for the polls, that does show how untrustworthy they can be. Mine was more recent, and both show different options, so how do we know which one is more accurate?

Terminology is an interesting argument. If you want to require scientific terms be used, the mother is now a "mature female homo sapien". I could just as accurately argue that the term was changed from baby to fetus by the pro-choice crowd in an attempt to de-humanize the unborn. For centuries people referred to fetuses as "unborn babies". Likewise a miscarriage was described as a woman "losing her baby". It is only very recently, mostly during the abortion debates, that the term fetus was brought into common usage.

And, once again, the discussion is brought off topic. None of your response actually counters my claim that the reason the pro-choice crowd paints the pro-life crowd as anti-woman has to do with the differing focus of the two groups. However, your response (specifically the part about terminology) does bring another possibility to mind. Perhaps another reason is part of a smear campaign - attempting to make pro-lifers look bad.

 

I'm sure you didn't intend to suggest that the woman is fully responsible for the pregnancy, but that is what the words suggest, "she put it in there."

 

I can see how it might be taken that way - which actually brings up another one of the reasons that pro-lifers are seen as anti-woman: Perhaps it is partly because their opponents either misunderstand or misconstrue their statements in such a way to make it seem like they are.

Let me rephrase: unless she was raped, the mother bears 50% responsibility for the pregnancy, as does the father.

 

did you actually read the poll you linked to .. it says that most Americans regard themselves as pro-life, yet when asked whether Roe should be overturned then the majority say no.

and I would agree with your comment, which is why IMO the two sides should stop focusing on either the zef or the woman and focus on reducing unwanted and/or unintended pregnancies as a whole, which is another thing I find hard to fathom with a lot of pro-life people the stand against the only things that have been proven to reduce pregnancy and therefore abortions those things being comprehensive sex education and freely available contraception.

Both sides of the debate have more in common than they would like to admit (when all the hyperbole is taken out) they both seek a time when abortion is basically moot, the differences are on how to achieve it-

Pro-lifers think it can be done via legislation and abstinence
Pro-choicers think it can be done via education and prevention

The problem is the pro-life method has consistently been shown to fail, while the pro-choice method has consistently been shown to succeed.

 

Generally when pro-lifers push for contraception and responsible behavior, it is after the fact, as in, "women who are

irresponsible in the their sexual habits should pay the consequences." Generally, they promote abstinence-only sex

education because they say just knowing about contraception encourages promiscuity, and generally, they vehemently oppose

free birth control because that is "socialism," even though it is the most effective way to reduce abortions.

The polls are not contradictory. Some people personally identify with the pro-life label, but don't want to impose their

beliefs on others.

Casually, "baby" is commonly used, but in debate for influencing abortion laws (which should be based on facts),

emotionally-laden terms are inappropriate. Medically, "baby" is the stage of development between birth and one year, so no

babies are ever aborted, and the use of that term confuses the issue.

Since a human fetus IS human, how can one be dehumanized for calling it what it is? That is the pro-life justification for

appealing to emotion.

As I explained before, when pro-lifers push for laws which do not reduce abortions but in every case punish women, how can

that NOT be perceived as anti-woman?

Is it your contention that pro-lifers don't engage in a conscious effort to emotionalize the debate? A smear campaign

would require spreading falsehoods. Please point out any false accusations I have made.

 

Actually, the only 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence. For sex education, it isn't that most pro-lifers are against it. They just are against the state taking away their right to choose how and when to provide that education to their own children. It is funny that pro-choicers are only pro-choice about that baby until it is either born or surgically removed. After that, they are quite content to take away a parent's right to raise their child.

As for free birth control, it isn't free. It is forcing responsible people to pay for irresponsible ones. Birth control is extremely cheap already - and free from many organizations. There is no reason for the government to take money from unwilling people to make it any more free.

The change in terminology is very much an attempt to dehumanize the unborn. It is very similar to the military using terms like "enemy combatant" and "hostile target" to describe the enemy. These terms help the soldiers to compartmentalize - to stop thinking about the fact that they are killing another human. It is the same in the abortion debate. In an attempt to help women believe that they aren't killing another human, pro-choicers have changed from the term that has been in common usage for years and shifted to something that makes it easier to stop thinking about the human that is being killed. Even that doesn't seem to be enough in many cases, so I've seen pro-choicers go one step further and call the baby, "just a lump of cells". This is an even more clear attempt to dehumanize the unborn.

For the next point, does that mean that people who push for laws that exclusively punish men are anti-man? That would mean that everyone who supports laws requiring men to pay child support is anti-man. It would mean that the Gomez v. Perez judgement was anti-man and every single law that stems from it is anti-man, as are all of the supporters of such laws.

In reality, just as supporters of those laws are looking out for the needs of the baby, the people who are against abortion are looking out for the unborn baby. They aren't anti-woman, they are pro-baby. They are only against the women who want to kill those babies.

As for smear campaign, there don't have to be any falsehoods in a smear campaign - in fact if there are it makes a person susceptible to conviction for defamation of character. A good smear campaign misconstrues the truth to make something sound bad, then brings focus to that negative portrayal. A great example is your claim that passing laws that only affect women are anti-woman. The laws do affect women and can't affect men, just as Gomez v. Perez affects men and can't affect women. That doesn't make the law anti-man or anti-woman, both laws are actually just against anyone who would harm a child. The fact that the people who are doing that harm are all of one gender doesn't mean that the law was specifically designed to harm that gender. It is focused on protecting the innocent, not harming any specific group.

 

Pro lifers..lol.
All a man has to do is to screw a woman and get her pregnant.
Then leave her..that will be enough to leave her in poverty.

Thats what I would do! and I wouldnt break my back to make the relationship work..


That would cause me visiting the woman every time, because the baby is also mine..

Those republicans are so daft, no idea how they get in politics.

 

Not true....some of you want restrictions on abortion that enslave the woman...so in that regard they do exactly what they say we do.

 

I dont find this accusation is too generally valid, but it does have a factual basis in some cases. Hard-core lifers are often opposed to basic sexual liberties and are religious; holding strict conservative values that truly seek to diminish and squash the role of women in society. You only have to look at the vitriol spewed from the mouths of many men on this website, and in the pubic sphere, like Rush Limbaugh for example, who find it extremely difficult to acknowledge the right of women to have sexual freedom and control over the bodies. They often have a problem with sex and the empowerment of women that allows them to deform and deface traditional gender roles which they see as integral to their world view and the manner in which society should function and operate. I do not believe the majority of lifers hold these values, but many of them do, and I would wager the older and more religious they are, the more likely they are to think like this also.

btw, I think as a proud libertarian you should be standing up for the rights of women to safegaurd their bodies.

 

Abstinence-only education has been proven ineffective. Teen pregnancies are highest in states with abstinence-only
education.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

It is hardly fair to blame pro-choicers for "taking away a parent's right to raise their child." Sex education policies
are usually determined at the local level by school boards or committees, with considerable input from conservative groups,
and most districts allow parents to opt out.

Parents can believe what they want about sex ed, but the evidence is conclusive that it reduces the number of unwanted
pregnancies, and therefore, the number of abortions. It comes down to choosing priorities, then. If reducing the number of
abortions were important enough to pro-lifers, they would support sex education.

Here again, what are one's priorities? Free birth control reduces the number of abortions, fact. It seems a small price
to pay to reduce the number of abortions IF that is the goal. Especially when you consider it is 4 times cheaper to
provide contraception than the alternative child welfare costs.

Saving the terminology argument for another thread. I don't know how you can honestly argue that precise and accurate
terms for prenatal stages of development are not essential in abortion debate. Not to mention that appeal to emotion
is a logical fallacy and as such, is intellectually dishonest.

You missed the point entirely, I'll try again. Anti-abortion laws which do not affect the number of abortions, and accomplish NOTHING, zero, zilch... but the punishment of women ARE, without question, anti-woman. They can't be compared to child support laws which affect men (and women), but actually accomplish support to the child in the process.

There is no "smear campaign."

 

Difference being that the pro-choicers who want this do so because of the viability factor .. something that pro-lifers dismiss without thought.

 

Please, focus on the thread topic. This is not a thread to discuss the merits of which terms will be used on the forum. Further posting of such unrelated topics, will result in thread bans.

If you read a post that in your judgment merits reporting, do so, and Staff will make a determination as to what action may be necessary. Do not respond to the offending post negatively yourself. Doing so will result in a thread ban for you as well.

Focus on the thread topic, period.

 

Anti-woman are the pro-choicers (all people who want abortion legal to give women the option to kill) but then their own position enslaved the woman because they do want restrictions as to how far along a women is to be able to kill. that position is not consistent and it takes women's rights away.