I've noticed that Pro-Choicers here mentally distract themselves

I love when the pot calls the kettle intellectually dishonest.

 

That's nice, I am 38 and have none. Certainly don't plan on it, either. Never mind how many married women press men into having kids they would rather not, then divorce and seek child support.

 

LOL, I can see denial runs deep. Us white devils and those termite Jews should just shut our privileged mouths, right? I suppose you think only whites can be racist too? Go ahead and start a thread on the bolded, be fun to watch that BS get shredded.

 

Feminist are sexist too. A little misandry for ya?

 

15 million unborn children: ten times than all US wars
The tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade" is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all out nation's wars. Source: Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, p. 15 , Jan 1, 1984

 

That's the first lie of whoever wrote that.
There is NO abortion on demand through all 9 months of pregnancy.

The right to one's own body doesn't have to be voted on...

Abortion is restricted...and the lies from whoever wrote this CRAP keep piling up...

A big hearty "So What ?!!!"

WTF does it have to do with people killed in war??? That's a real stumper.....

 

It's not two arguments, it's two parts of the same argument. Ultimately, a fetus has no rights as the unborn have not yet become individuals and attained them, which can only happen at birth when it achieves independence and truly becomes an individual. Personhood is a concept invented by anti-abortionists to try and make it seem like a fetus is the same as a born person, when medically, physically, traditionally, and socially they are not. So basically, anti-abortionists can call a fetus a person all they want but the nomenclature doesn't change it's status as a non-individual. That is what is being pointed out by pro-choicers.

And, it might amuse you(or perhaps not) to hear me point out that the very tactic you've created this thread about is one used constantly by anti-abortionists, for the same purposes. When presented with arguments that cannot be countered, anti-abortionists will resort to the living-human-being-life-is-sacred-prochoicers-are-monsters-who-must-want-to-murder-people-and-love-death shtick.

 

Well put and true!!

 

The fetus isn't a person, period. If being a person is necessary for the fetus to be valued, then the fetus is doomed. Does the fetus have value? I think most of us believe it does, particularly in the third trimester. OTOH, about two-thirds of us have concluded pretty consistently since Roe v. Wade that the fate of the fetus should be up to the woman in the first trimester.

Lemme try again. The fetus isn't a person. You're not a person until you've been born.

You have quite the imagination.

 

There are no "souls," nor is there an Imaginary Friend, especially one that's going to help you cheat death.

 

It's dead, but it isn't a dead person.

 

Which isn't an argument for whether or not it would be wrong if it was a person.
That's the whole point of my thread.

Pro-choicers seek to avoid either argument by claiming it's irrelevant because of the other argument. The problem is they use this tactic on both arguments.

 

Yeah that constitution can be a real pain when you want to restrict people’s rights.

 

Fixed. A lot of men are determined to support women in their quest for reproductive freedom. I might add that children are all of our responsibility.

 

I support the idea it would be wrong if it was a person, but It isn't.

I'm a pro-choicer and I'm not avoiding the issue.

 

Yes. But as generally they don't, it means this thread is disingenuous.

You're ignoring the large numbers of pro-lifers who do what you criticize, and you're ignoring the majority of the pro-choicers who don't use such tactics. You're pretending that a few pro-choicers not being consistent represent all pro-choicers. Again, very disingenuous of you. It's as if you're looking for excuses to avoid actual discussion.

Given how almost no pro-lifers can stay on topic or stay consistent, it's pro-choicers who really have justification to make threads like this. Yet we don't. We can discuss the issues head on, so we don't need to make whiny-trolly threads like this.

 

I don't care if it is....as long as it is dead

 

You mean these men want to be able to go out there and not knock chicks up, and not have to worry about child support.

 

Actually, though you probably wont understand this....there are men who not only respect women but treat them as equal to themselves (if not better in ways) and act accordingly. This would include championing the rights we as males take for granted but are not necessarily "Granted" to them. This respect and appreciation comes from years of contact and interaction with this strange and complex creature so it may simply be a matter of experience and education that leads to this understanding.

 

The "some" men I was talking about support a woman's right to choose, including her right to choose abortion. They also rear the children they father, even if the woman they impregnate would rather they go away.

 

Yep, those cunning women, Just another conspiracy even though it’s not true because I don’t think most men are that stupid

 

I've noticed that most pro-choicers were already born.

 

WOW! Are you ever clever and observant!!! I am sooooooo impressed by your powers of observation and your completely UNoriginal and pointless post

 

This post is nothing but an attempt to transfer the issues of the anti aborts on to the other side.

It is the anti aborts who are intellectually dishonest - using obfuscative language - engaging in fallacy - and outright falsehood. They then run to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial when they are faced with evidence that conflicts with their nonsensical beliefs.

 

Does this mean a woman can sue her fetus for invading her body?