Is it fair to say that the moment a woman becomes pregnant, most "pro-lifers"...

no longer consider her a human being, but a "baby-making machine" or "baby-making animal", that has no rights?

They may balk at that less-than-polite terminology....but that IS essentially their position, isn't it?

While they believe a fetus, even an embryo or fertilized egg is a "person with rights"....they do NOT believe that a pregnant woman is a "person with rights", because they want to limit her rights and make her subservient to the egg, embryo, or fetus...like a slave or a domesticated animal?

She no longer can control her own body, even down to what she eats and drinks....and she must be the servant of the "person" within her, her master as dictated by Government fiat that the "pro-lifers" support.

 

I say it's a fair assessment from what I've read from Anti-Choicers in this forum.

 

From the male "pro-lifer" who wants women monitored by the Government....

to the one who would want women EXECUTED if they self-induced an abortion (BTW, how many would he want executed for a miscarriage...."None"?...then how does he prove "murder" in court?)

to the younger one who ADMITS that he wants to "control women...but just the evil ones"

Sweep away all their fluff (and denials), and it's clear that once a woman becomes pregnant....they no longer consider her a person, but a "baby-making machine" or the "slave to the fetus".

 

Only if they were "repeat offenders" (women who have already had multiple illegal abortions).
And as for routine scans, was not suggesting they should be monitored more than anyone else. Just if they're already being scanned, why not modify the scanner to check for pregnancy too? That's all I was suggesting.

No one is seriously suggesting the death penalty for a woman who gets an early term abortion. Perhaps he meant a late-term abortion?

If murder can't be clearly proven, and there's a good chance it could have just been a natural death, no one should be punished.

What's wrong with that? If they're evil.

And she flipped the "on" switch, starting the production process. Let's not forget that.

I consider them more of an indentured servant, of sorts. She still has rights, but she has new obligations also.
And a pregnancy is not permanent.

Someone else's life is at stake. If she doesn't want her life to be a little inconvenienced for a couple of months, she should be more careful not to get pregnant in the first place.

 

Still projecting the lie I see

 

"""Only if they were "repeat offenders" (women who have already had multiple illegal abortions)."""


So why do you think abortion should be illegal?

Because it's "murder"?


Then why do you want "murderers" to have to reach a quota?

Do non-pregnant people get a certain amount of murders before they are monitored??

 

I would have to disagree. Barring the more misogynist folks, I think most pro-lifers don't really consider the implications of what they believe when it comes to abortion. It's not about controlling women or exerting control, it's about saving those babies, but as always, actions matter whereas intentions are ultimately meaningless to anyone outside of the person doing the intending. If one is supporting policies that oppress women and strip them of sovereign rights of their body, it really doesn't matter what you tell yourself to justify it, your actions accomplish that purpose regardless.

 

Shame that the more misogynist folks show up in this forum. But most "pro-lifers", in the end, after all their "reasoned", standard arguments are refuted, in frustration start spouting about "keeping their legs together", and "not one penny of my taxes" , "live with the consequences of sex"," it's murder!" , "they only have abortions for convenience"...





The Anti-Choicers love to bring up slavery in their "arguments" but ignore the true comparison of slavery with abortion and women :

I'm sure many slave owners didn't actively hate their slaves, maybe some even thought they loved their slaves .....but that didn't make a bit of difference to the slaves, they were still slaves.

 

When it comes to losing one's liberty, committing a serious crime and getting pregnant will get you to the same place. We might as well just consider armed home invasion and sexual intercourse as similar crimes with similar penalties.

 

At this point, we are better off than some places. A woman in El Salvador was recently pardoned after being jailed for 25 years for having a stillbirth. But it isn't for a lack of pro-life attempts, that the same thing isn't happening here:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/buckhalter-mississippi-stillbirth-manslaughter

 

So despite having broken no laws and committed no crime you want people monitored .. I seem to remember another time and another people who had that done to them.

Why not, or isn't a fertilized ovum a person any more. Murder is murder the age of the victim is immaterial.

So in reality then its just a feel good law, because there is no way the courts are going to be able to even come close to a case especially for early abortions.

Define evil, is someone wanting to control another persons body - even for a short time - evil?

You really know nothing about biology do you?

indentured servitude is illegal, read the 13th amendment.

Yet again placing the blame on the woman for "opening her legs".

 

You sound just like the people who say that saying college women shouldnt get drunk, regardless of the dangers behind it, is victim blaming.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/...ersonal-responsibility-for-drinking-too-much/

 

I'm not quite understanding your argument. The analogy of a woman to a machine, or whatever it is, is rather hard to follow. You believe that it is the woman's fault for "flipping the switch", or rather having sex/getting pregnant? What about the man? It takes two people to make a child. If the woman is being punished, why shouldn't the man as well?

 

Who gets pregnant? Not the man. Sex has much larger implications for the woman than the man, when you get right down to real life the woman has the responsibility for making sure she does not get pregnant. You can say its unfair and its not politically correct, but that's reality.

And you can also thank the feminists of the past 50 years for liberating themselves from men - with the unintended consequence of freeing men from having to deal with the consequences of sex.

 

This thread just further verifies one fact - that even after the myriad threads on abortion and the endless attempts to explain the pro-life philosophy, abortionists just don't learn. Its always the same in these threads, abortionists repeat the same old self-serving misrepresentations, always start from the same old ridiculous position, always make the same old closed minded arguments when confronted.

After so much time spent on this subject, its reasonable to expect abortionists to at least understand the opposition viewpoint so they can present arguments designed to convert people to their side, but reason must not apply to abortionists. Clearly the intent of these pro-abortion threads is not to convert people to the abortionist side or to build understanding to blunt opposition to abortion.

This is one reason why abortionists are losing. The pro-life side presents arguments and addresses the issues raised by abortionists, pro-life people have a dialogue, that's one reason the pro-life position is gaining supporters.

 

So actually reading the threads and post in here is way too much trouble for you. ....but yet you comment.

IF you had read a few threads you would've seen Anti-Choice rhetoric, lies, distortions, emotional diatribes and weird ideas soundly thrashed into dust.

 

EVERYONE should be free from the consequences of sex.

Feminists have liberated women from the Rules of Sex Written by Men.

The only unfair thing is FORCING women to give birth.

 

Typical, you did not read what I wrote. I read every single post in this thread, some in detail as I was going to respond and started a response. You should read as carefully, and think as carefully.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, whatever, you are not going to change the reality that women get pregnant, men do not, and because of the liberation of women men can and do walk away from their child-rearing responsibilities. That's the way it is, pining for utopia won't change it.

 

What a load of BS, so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing a woman when she is drunk is your idea of a "good time" is it.

 

Oh, wow, you read this whole thread!!!! But my comment referenced threadSSSS , see the "s" on the ends of the word means more than one.

Now to the ridiculous comment that because of women's liberation NOW men walk away from their child rearing responsibilities....DUH, when haven't they....your total and complete lack of knowledge of history comes shining clearly through in that comment. Poor little men, all those women FORCED them to be irresponsible....ya right

- - - Updated - - -

Why are you always going off topic?

 

I've read many of the abortion threads, and posted many times in them - as you well know since most of the time the result has been you leaving with no remaining rational argument.

 

If you oppose the liberation of women, what should they be? Enslaved?

 

All I was saying is that people being outraged at the Fox News guy saying that women getting drunk is irresponsible is similar to you saying that pro lifers want to blame women. Its the same mentality.

 

Only in your mind. There is no proof of your erroneous statement.

 

Really? The fact is that men have always been free of having to deal with consequences of sex. Men could always just walk away, and they did. Now that DNA testing makes it impossible for them to deny a child, they want to be able to "abort" their responsibilities because it's not fair that women can abort and they have no say. Boo Hoo!