Not true. I know of abortions where the women wanted the baby but the men threatened to leave if they had the baby. It was his choice the baby was aborted. It's no surprise that serial abusers of women like Hugh Heffner, Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein are all pro-choice.
I have a degree in Chemistry with a minor in Biochemistry .. so I think I have the classes covered ... and I work in applied microbiology and am an expert in my field Not that this is required however - grade 10 biology is all that one needs to know that a sperm is alive.
I doubt very much that you "Know" even one case of this let alone more.....reading about something on a website is not "Knowing" a thing.
No it's personal knowledge. But even if I didn't know anyone personally, anyone with any knowledge of how men dominate women in some relationships would realize that this happens. You have heard of the "metoo" movement? Wouldn't it be logical that men who harass women would be likely to want to force them to get an abortion as well, and use pro-choice dogma to justify it? Of course expecting a pro-choice extremist to be logical is expecting too much. They're more comfortable with hysterical screeching at those who aren't as extreme as them, or doubting any personal knowledge their opponents have, or assuming that anyone who opposes abortion is a right-winger who doesn't support women's rights. It's much easier that way isn't it? (Incoming all caps and all bold from Foxhastings...3...2..1)
The man. Threatened to,leave so she CHOSE to have an abortion for whatever reason. It wasn’t his choice. I am sure there are plenty of men who threatened to leave and the women went ahead and had a baby. It was his wish or his desire for her to have an abortion but only she can do that. And the stupid men who make these “demands” don’t realize that if she chooses to keep the baby...he has to pay child support! Most intelligent man are pro-choice Usually the men who are against a woman’s right to an abortion are also the ones who want to cut healthcare and food assistance for children...
Right. Everyone who agrees with you is smart and those who disagree with you are stupid. Way to lose an argument.
And if you believe a sperm is a life...then I don’t believe you. You said it is a life! Wow just think of all those adolescent boys killing of millions of little toddlers
I could say the same thing about you. Rather than attack the messenger why don’t you address the message
Mmmm, Interesting that you just accused me of doing just what you’re doing, Accusing pro-choice people as not being logical. Only you’re logical Lol You seem to be doing a lot of “screeching “ and you seem to be quite the extremist There are plenty of people who are pro-choice and who personally oppose abortion but they don’t want to take control of a woman’s body and force her to breed against her will like you do. Get it through your head no one can force a woman to have an abortion. A man can try and talk her into it... it it’s her body, her choice
How would you honestly feel if women had the right to tell men what to do with their reproductive organs? Would you be offended? What if the shoe was on the other foot?? How would you deal with it?
I've seen hysterical people on both sides. It is, after all, an emotionally charged issue. However, some people approach it logically, and the only logical positions I have seen have been on the pro-choice side. The quick version for the reasons for pro-choice being logically correct include: 1. A lack of personhood makes fetuses morally irrelevant. Life isn't what is valued, but rather a particular kind of life (we eat plants, we even eat animals, that destroys "life"). It is human life, but what is it about human life that makes it worth protecting? It's the person, it's the mind. This does not come into existence until sometime after 20 weeks. 2. Growing in a mom's body means that the fetus's rights (if it were a person) would be subordinate to the mother's. Demanding pregnancy to save the fetuses life would be like requiring a sibling to donate their kidney to their dying sibling. Maybe they should do it, but it would be immoral to force them to because it would violate their right to control over their bodies. 3. Outlawing abortion does not reduce abortions, but rather makes them more dangerous. If we truly believed abortion was a bad thing, the best thing to reduce them would be to have widely available and reliable birth control and resources to promote the use of such things on a voluntary basis. In America, this would mean having universal access to healthcare for starters. As to the argument you try to make in the post. Misusing the truth as a weapon doesn't make it less true.
I guess Denmark and the vast majority of other nations aren't logical because they outlaw abortion at 12 weeks, which is more reasonable than what abortion on demand extremists at Planned Parenthood want. Most of these countries have universal health care. Even Ireland has universal health care, despite abortion being illegal there until last month. If you care so much about universal health care you should condemn Planned Parenthood for opposing it.
You seem to think it's more logical, but I have said why it is not (definitely not a person before 20 weeks). Regarding this issue, Denmark is not logical. I don't know that I've talked a lot about Planned Parenthood. I do support them because they provide contraceptive and abortion services for women who need them. I disagree with them if that's their position on universal healthcare, but I do not think they are a significant force in preventing it from happening here so it doesn't really matter.
Why don't you believe it's a person before 20 weeks? What's so different about 19 weeks from 21 weeks?
Of course a sperm is a life. Everything that is alive is a life - by definition. Then you create a false dichotomy by conflating "a life" with the life of a toddler. Just because something is alive - does not make that thing a toddler/ a human. You are desperately trying to discombobulate the English language to try and argue that a zygote is a human. A sperm is a life. Further - it is human life. That does not make a sperm a living human .. any more than a zygote.
Pro choice has nothing to do with taking care of their offspring. It has to do with respecting women’s right to reproductive freedom
Stop playing semantics ..I use this definition...a : the period from birth to death You’re right, my skin is alive....it’s a baby! My tulips are alive...they’re pretty people
You are the one playing semantics and using the English language in a disingenuous way. I am the one using technically correct language and correcting your mistakes. You are using the definition for what "the period from birth to death" ? What does the period from when a baby is born - to the time the baby dies - have to do with the abortion issue ? What is your point ?
Give the definition for a person/ a living human that you are using ? My definition includes consciousness = significant brain function. One of the reasons for this is that if a living human has no significant brain function, the coroner pulls the plug and the dirt nap begins as the person is considered clinically dead.
