I'm a progressive I'm also pro life, abortion rights are doomed, give up the fight.

I can do no more than apologize for my error and false assumptions. I have done so...twice now.
Have A Nice Day

 

And where in those words do I demand anyone to live by my moral standards?

It means women ought to be treated with respect and not as sex objects and that women themselves do no only regard their value to be in their sexuality. Meanwhile, it also means that men ought not to view women as wandering vaginas and they ought to respect women for who they are. This is my view of how gender relations should look like in an ideal society. If you disagree, you are free to do so because I am not saying that anyone who deviates from this view should be thrown in jail, am I?

Nope. I am not "dictating" anything. However, what I am saying is that a man who does not wish to impregnate a woman, should make sure he does not do so and that a woman who does not wish to be impregnated by a man should make sure it does not happen. I am advocating for individual responsibility and I really do not see why this is so shocking to you.

I have never used any of those formulation, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. A technique worthy only the truly and most honest of opponents... Not.

 

I really do not see any reason for you to apologise for anything. But, now that you have felt that it was the most desireble thing to do and thus also the right thing to do (wink, wink), I can say that I respect your modest honesty.

It is still quite strange how you could assume that I was "Pro Life" when all I have been doing in this thread is talk about choice:

Spoiler

One of my earlier posts in topic (#175) - From the very beginning I made it very clear I do not view this as a matter of "Life" and all I ever have been talking about ever since is infact choice - "What's a good choice?" and "What's a bad choice?" are the two questions all of my posts in here have evolved around.

In this post (#181), I - once again - make it very clear that I do not care about defining "life" or about whether a zygote or a fetus is a baby or not - My concern is with choice!

Here (#213), I make an argument that is not typical for the average "Pro Lifer - I claim we are lucky to have technologies that assure safe abortions. An opinion I present once more in post #217;

Here (#241), I spell it out very loudly and clearly that I am not Pro-Life.

Once again I (#26 point out that I am not concerned with life; Which, again, is very atypical for someone who is in the "Pro Life"-camp, don't you think?

Once again, I (#272) - once again - spell it loud and spell it clear that I do not oppose abortion.

 

That is the most obscure thing I have ever read on this board. Citation needed.

 

So to be clear, you oppose any law that would deny women ownership and control of their bodies?

 

Ironic projection in your last paragraph duly noted and ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

Obviously not ignored since you decided to reply to it. Something that further proves that you are not prepared to answer to the points I made in that post.

 

That's just it. Choice ends when the child is conceived. Now it is the responsibility and duty of the mother to protect that child at all costs.

 

So, the conceptus has more rights than the woman?

 

BOTH have equal rights. Sorry if this bursts your little bubble.

 

So if the pregnancy causes the mother to be permanently affected then.......

 

What do you mean "if"? Parenthood is a wonderful thing.

 

Well, they do have control over whether or not they got pregnant in the first place.

(at least a great measure of control)

Also, a pregnant woman would have control over her body to go anywhere she chooses, as long as it's not through the doors of an abortion clinic.

Women are not being asked to do anything that's not natural. In fact, the woman doesn't really have to actively do anything at all ! it's what she's being asked not to do.

 

You DON'T get to make that random arbitrary choice for other people!

 

Wrong!

A fetus has NO RIGHTS whatsoever!

 

Specious fallacy!

A woman does NOT have to remain pregnant if she decides that the negatives exceed her ability to provide for the unwanted child.

 

The negatives, or her negatives?

Is that what pro-choicers believe pregnancy is all about, self-actualization of the woman?

 

BINGO!!

 

So you readily admit that abortion kills children.

 

There are BOTH negatives associated with the RISKS of pregnancy and the CIRCUMSTANCES in which find themselves when they become pregnant.

It is NOT up to those with an ANTI-WOMEN'S RIGHTS agenda to arbitrarily DICTATE that none of those negatives can be used to obtain an abortion.

 

Asinine STRAWMAN duly noted and IGNORED for obvious reasons.

Only those OPPOSED to WOMEN'S RIGHTS use that DEBUNKED puerile fallacy.

 

No, it isn't.

 

ALL the negatives are her negatives, she's the one who is pregnant.

Why do you think you should rule women's lives?

 

Derideo_Te said: ↑
Specious fallacy!

A woman does NOT have to remain pregnant if she decides that the negatives exceed her ability to provide for the unwanted child.

Please point out exactly where in that post he said the fetus was a child?

Answer: No where...

 

No, they do not. The fetus has no rights.

IF the fetus had a right to use another's body to sustain it's life then it has MORE RIGHTS than anyone else.....so what YOU want is not equal at all...