Let's put this myth to rest once and for all: The Republican Party is NOT the "pro-life" party.

FoxHastings said: ↑
PROVING that Anti-Choicers ONLY want to punish women for having sex..."


YES, that's the motive of Anti-Choicers.....as proven by their contention that if a woman has sex she must give birth.

As proven by the fact that some of the Anti-Choicers make an exception for rape and incest.

Uh, I didn't have to make up anyting....most Anti-Choicers, as I have PROVEN, want to punish women for having consensual sex.

 

I am on the opposite side from you on this issue but I can see you are at least speaking in good faith unlike fox here.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Do YOU want to make an exception in the case of rape or incest????

Or force rape victims to be punished by having their rapist's kid?

And there it is....the duck and doge and inability to answer the questions...

GEE, why not?



Your :"pull it out to justify NO restriction on abortion up to the moment of birth"....where TF did that come from.....I NEVER, in the post of mine you quoted or this thread, brought that up...we were NOT DISCUSSING that so why the segue(dodge)around the questions in the post of mine you quoted

 

You are being disingenuous by pretending Fox limited this to Republican Party. He didn't. He said "anti-choicers". Abortion is an issue that exists outside your self absorbed country.

 

Happy again to now see you write "most". Your original claim didn't do that, and also said "only". Which made it an absolutely huge claim that you failed to back up.

And no, you haven't proved even that they want to punish women for having sex.

Just because some of them make an exception for rape cases doesn't prove your claim. It only shows them balancing conflicting concerns. Some are willing to sacrifice the life of the child (as they see it) when balancing that against the pain of carrying a rapists baby. And not all of them do. Others don't make this exception.

I haven't seen any say it's about punishment. That appears to be your own creation born of your desire to demonize them.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
THIS,, PROVING that Anti-Choicers ONLY want to punish women for having sex...""

has been my experience.

Are YOU contending that they don't ??? LOLOL

Oh? Then what about those who would make an exception in the case of rape or incest?

WHY would they??

Are the "unborn " of a rapist not as good as the "unborn" of women who had consensual sex ?

 

Only those who don't want to see claim there is no punishment in taking away basic human rights...


And who TF are those who think THEY should determine which fetus lives and which fetus dies???? Uh, sounds a sick twisted god complex


Questions so carefully avoided:

YES, MANY Anti-Choicers say if a woman has sex she must go through the pregnancy....it has been said in almost every thread on abortion including THIS ONE.


Do YOU want to make an exception in the case of rape or incest????

Or force rape victims to be punished by having their rapist's kid?

 

Are you talking about "anti-choicers" or "pro-choicers"? Isn't the whole pro-choice stance that pregnant women should determine if their fetus lives or dies? Are you accusing them of having a God complex?

Which isn't what you claimed. You claimed that they only want to punish women for having sex. Can you really not see the difference?

I am not an "Anti-choicer". I already told you I am pro-choice. I support abortion rights rape or no rape.

 

The pro-lfe folks will see a ton of hypocrisy in the above text, while you argue for homicide of innocent unborn babies (as they see it). Are you out to punish babies for existing?

 

Like HeadStart?

Some say the best way to help children is by having the government as parent.
Some say the best way to help children is by have the parent as the parent.

I say the latter how about you?

 

NO, because it's their choice, their body. Anti-Choicers want to impose their belief( as if they're god) on others

FORCING someone to go through a pregnancy is punishment...

Can you really not see that !!????

Then let's ask the question of Anti-Choicer ( which you sure sound like to me )


Why do they make exceptions for rape?? NOT ONE has ever answered that question..

 

You questions are answered which stymies you so you pull up the RAPE RAPE RAPE hammer when rape accounts for just 1% of abortions and pregnancy from rape can be entirely avoided.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Only those who don't want to see claim there is no punishment in taking away basic human rights...

Of course Anti-Choicers see it all wrong, they aren't the brightest bulbs

You may not be Anti-Choice but you sure know their tricks for making things up......

I do not believe in punishing babies.....which has nothing to do with abortion unless one is an Anti-Choicer who insist a fetus is a baby because they deny science

 

And if children don't have the parent as the parent then their just screwed.

 

Is killing your child via abortion punishment?
Are you only out to punish children and kill them?
That's not the vast majority of pro-choice people, but it fits your faulty argument.

So would every other restriction of freedom when conflicting with another freedom.

I answered that. I am getting the strong sense that you respond to posts without reading them.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Do YOU want to make an exception in the case of rape or incest????

Or force rape victims to be punished by having their rapist's kid?





And there it is....the duck and doge and inability to answer the questions...

GEE, why not?



Your :"pull it out to justify NO restriction on abortion up to the moment of birth"....where TF did that come from.....I NEVER, in the post of mine you quoted or this thread, brought that up...we were NOT DISCUSSING that so why the segue(dodge)around the questions in the post of mine you quoted

Nice dodge....and of course you are wrong, I have never used rape as justification for abortion. THERE I answered your "dodge the questions" issue...

 

So you CANNOT address :
FoxHastings said: ↑
FORCING someone to go through a pregnancy is punishment...


There are NO children involved in this issue unless one is a confirmed Anti-Choicer who denies science

 

Yes. They wrongly see the unborn as people, even extending for some of them to freshly fertilized human egg cells ("life begins at conception").

I find that completely irrational. But it is what it is. They see that as human lives, as people (or quasi people) in need of protection from those who seek to kill them. They don't "only want to punish women for having sex" anymore than you are only want to kill babies.

I have not made anything up. You have.
You are engaging in bad faith towards them and misrepresenting them. I am not interested in doing that.

Of course not. But your disingenuous argument above applies to that false claim as much as it does your false claim that they only want to punish women. In both cases basic freedoms are being transgressed.

Now you are getting there.

 

How can pregnancy from rape be entirely avoided? Plan B (morning after pill) isn't 100% effective. Do you have something else in mind?

 

YUP, when you posted : "Are you out to punish babies for existing?"

I never mentioned babies.....



.

No, I do not misrepresent anything they have said...I have been debating abortion for years and everything I've said about Anti-Chpoicers is true...maybe not every single one,but most....if they think I'm wrong then maybe saner Anti-Choicers should address the issue.

I made no false claim...



So you CANNOT address :
FoxHastings said: ↑
FORCING someone to go through a pregnancy is punishment...


There are NO children involved in this issue unless one is a confirmed Anti-Choicer who denies science

 

What else could be the motivation to oppose abortion?

"Right to life" doesn't have to apply in general. Heavy criminals, for example, could be exempted from this.

But an innocent fetus should never get death penalty for its parents' inability to raise a child. This is always unethical, whether you believe in God or not.

 

No, you didn't. And you don't have to. I know you don't see a fetus that way, but that is how the pro-lifers see it. They see it as an unborn baby, and they see it as a life that needs to be protected. And they weigh that against the mother's right to control her body. They are weighing two competing concerns. And they (in most cases, rape being an exception for some of them) weigh the life over the woman's choice. They tell you this explicitly and it isn't hard to understand (even if you think its irrational) if you take your own ideological blinders off.

Yes, you do. You made a broad sweeping statement that "anti-choicers" ONLY care about PUNISHING women for SEX.

I've rarely heard any of them say its about punishment for sex. Most of them don't want punishment at all. And those who do want punishment, want it for the "murder" of the innocent "child", not for having sex.

And even for those, if any, who may have that motivation, I don't buy your claim that that's ONLY what its about for them. I think that is you disingenuously projecting motives onto them to demonize them. And I see little difference in approach, projection, or honesty between you saying that and them saying you simply want babies to die.

Not necessarily no. Is forcing somebody to fight in a war a punishment? Is forcing somebody to wear a seatbelt a punishment? Is gun control punishment? There are many cases in which we put restrictions on people's rights, for many different reasons, that are not about punishment.

But they ARE "anti-choicers". Just because you and I don't see the unborn as children, doesn't mean they don't. When you declare their motivation, you are speaking about their mindset and motivation, not about objective reality. People can be wrong without being malicious.

 

I think your point is we should be nice to Anti-Choicers because they have their reasons (un-admitted) for depriving women of their rights.

You and I won't agree because I consider anyone who wants to destroy other's rghts as a fiend , a nasty person who enjoys their rights but want to take away other's rights...two-faced and evil.

I have no respect for their warped view .


I will address one of your erroneous points and then will be done (bickering is not allowed in here)


YOU:

"""I've rarely heard any of them say its about punishment for sex."""



DUH, of course they don't come right out and say that ...but they DO say "if a woman CHOOSES to have sex she MUST accept the consequences"

See, that means she must be punished for having sex.

And when SOME of them say they'd make an exception for rape that means that they ( those people) only want to punish women for having consensual sex since they do NOT want to punish women who have been raped and are pregnant....and YES, for some women FORCED pregnancy IS A PUNISHMENT.




YOU:
""" Most of them don't want punishment at all. And those who do want punishment, want it for the "murder" of the innocent "child", not for having sex.""




LOL so they want punishment and they don't want punishment ...LOL

How heinous to want a woman executed or jailed for life for having an abortion..AFTER THEY'VE TAKEN AWAY HER RIGHTS

How TWO-FACED to say it's murder but not want the "murderer" punished.

"most" ???? How many?


No, YOU "respect" and defend these fiends ....I don't have to.

I will debate the abortion issue.

 

Great post and true, thank you.

 

The Republican Party's support for the State arrogating a woman's personal liberty is entirely consistent with its surrendering to the State the right to kill people.

Obviously, there is an inconsistency, but the common, consistent theme is authoritarianism in the form of control over everyone's life by the State.

If that dual conviction can be labeled "pro-life", then El Salvador and Iraq are moral paradigms that Republicans believe the U.S. should emulate, as they abrogate a woman's control over her own body while executing their citizens.

Advanced, democratic nations differ.

Personally, I favor a woman exercising her right to make such personal decisions in consultation with trusted medical and spiritual advisers, friends and family rather than be subjected to an impersonal state edict. Neither do I attribute to any nation on earth the infallibility that would sanction the State's designating whomever it declares should be killed by it.