~ MOD ALERT ~ Why is Pro-Life seen as Anti-Woman?

Neither will I engage in the usual right-wing soundbites, got anything else of real value to add.

So please do point out where I have said you "hate" women, I said a war on women, do you hate everyone you are at war with.
So in your world the potential over rules the actual, or does the woman not count as an actual to you, and the conversation is more likely to be
"I value this future person's existence, whether that are male of female and because I value it it should be illegal to abort them even though that means the state taking control of a woman's reproductive choices."
Response
"You seem to think that it is ok for the minority to dictate to all others even using laws to enforce that minority viewpoint. Do you think it is right for the government to place laws that restrict body autonomy?"

Lol, love that you accuse me of a fallacy and then produce one all of your own .. it's called an appeal to emotion BTW.

Here in case you don't know what that is - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

Why do you say alleged right, according to your SCOTUS it is a right, a right which has stood, despite challenges, for over 40 years .. tell me when do you think it will be overturned, this year, next year .. another 40 years. It sound like to me that you are one of these people who only supports the law if it happens to agree with your own personal perspective.

Over-ruled because you say so gonna have to be better than your say so I'm afraid.

Just to be clear, nobody "dictates" morality, unless of course you are mindless zombie unable to think for yourself and therefore must have someone or something to do your thinking for you .. oh yeah, you do it's called religion.

 

Actually you are wrong, I personally don't think anyone or thing dictates morality, they certainly try to control it . .however trying to control it doesn't stop anyone having their own moral base. The only people I see trying to enforce their morality onto others are the misguided people who rely on religion as their crutch to get through life.

I've had this debate before about universal morals and so far haven't found a single argument that makes universal morals a fact, so whether you believe it or not ALL morals are variable, given our human uniqueness that is all they can. be

 

The definition of morality is being able to discern right from wrong. In that context there is no variability.

 

There is plenty of variability, abortion being a case .. you believe it is immoral, I don't, straight away there is variability.

How about war
How about the care system
How about euthanasia
How about homosexuality

The list is endless

You, like everyone else, base your morality on personal things, sure it can be guided but in the end it is you who decides what is right and wrong, and no matter what a government try to enforce people will abide by their own moral decisions.

 

If there is no agreed upon morality then how does one know right from wrong in the first place? If you then say there is some kind of basic morality, then where does it come from?

 

You don't, you follow the standard advocated by the society you grew up in and now live in.

Does a 3 year old know the difference between right and wrong .. no they don't, they are taught the difference based on their parents and peers perspective.

If as you seem to allude to there is some sort off universal morality why do we have various moral codes throughout the world, and of those codes which one is right... yours, because if you ask a thousand people from various societies the chances are their moral code will be quite different from yours.

Do you think you moral code would be the same if you had grown up in a Muslim, Buddhist, or Atheist society?

 

Calling pro-lifers "anti-woman" is an appeal to the emotions fallacy, and I will explain why. Here's what SpaceCricket79 said about this topic. I will quote him.

 

A pro-lifer who is anti-woman WANTS to view women as being weak and defenseless creatures and does not want to allow them any power, particularly the power to make decisions. It's no accident that anti-abortion forces seem most active during historical times of women pressing for more political power for themselves.

 

My pro-life beliefs are rooted in a respect for unborn life, not in any desire to see women not have any political power, etc.

 

You are quite right that there's no right to abortion in the constitution. Their reasoning in Roe vs. Wade was guided by a preconceived conclusion, as it almost always is. The Supreme Court serves to increase Federal power. That's it's function.

However, there's also no constitutional right to life. You quoted the declaration of independence, which has no legal authority. If you want to outlaw abortion then either do it at the state level (all powers not delegated to the Fed are reserved to the states and people), or pass an amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough, I think it's a very small minority of individuals who actually desire evil. Pretty much everyone I've encountered has been genuine in their conviction, even if I disagree with it.

 

It's really very simple.
Right now a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body.

The objective of the whole "Pro-Life" movement is to remove this right.

So, whatever they claim to be their "real motivation" , the thing they are working to do, is to remove a right that women currently have.

A lot of people consider removing rights from a class of people to be "Anti" that class of people, because it is really.
So taking away a woman's right to choose what her body gets used for, is anti-woman.

You don't even have to delve into the misogyny that is so much a part of "Pro-Life" rhetoric.

 

Yeah right. Anybody who doesn't believe that women should have the right to kill their own children for convenience reasons is "anti-woman". Oh brother.

 

You respect "unborn life" soooo much, you are willing to force women to risk their health, lives, and relinquish their liberty to protect it...

 

Before abortion was legalized, the unborn had a right to life. The pro-choice camp successfully took that most basic right away from them. Pro-lifers just want to return the most basic of all rights to the unborn. They don't wish specifically to take away any of a woman's rights. If there was a way to protect the unborn without inconveniencing women, pro-lifers would gladly accept it. Since there isn't, we have to determine whose rights and which rights take precidence.

Most people consider the right to life to supercede most other rights. Your right to life supercedes my right to do what I wish with my body (I can't put my fist through your face). It even supercedes my right to property (the govenment will tax me and take my property to provide sustinance to you if you are in desparate need.) Similarly, pro-lifer's believe that the unborn's right to life supercedes the woman's right to do as she pleases and her right to avoid discomfort.

The objective of the movement is to return a right to the unborn. The loss of the mother's right is an unofortunate byproduct of that objective.

 

Okay, so the woman's "liberty", which is basically convenience reasons, is more important than the life of her child.

This ideology is sick and morally twisted.

 

And there's that misogyny .....

 

The removal of a woman's right is the objective of the "pro-life" movement.
Because you feel that you are a better judge of how a woman's body should be used than she is.
Isn't that the point?
You feel morally superior to women, and you feel that it would be better if you decided how their bodies got used, rather than letting them decide.

 

How is this statement of mine misogynistic? I make valid points. You just insult me because the truth hurts. Here's what I said.

 

As long as you trivialize pregnancy and childbirth as "inconvenience," you can't be taken seriously.

 

Oh, pardon me, you just said that women murder their children for convenience.
You presume to know their reasons, and that their reasons aren't valid.
Because they aren't at the same high moral level you are.

Did I imply that was misogynistic......because actually, it is.

 

To determine the validity of your argument, lets try the standard test of reversal:

The removal of the unborn's right to life is the objective of the pro-choice movement.
Because they don't feel that the life of the unborn is of any value.
Isn't that the point?
They feel the mother is utterly superior to the unborn and that the mother has the absolute right to decide whether their child will live or die. The child does not deserve to live except at the convenience of the mother.

Just like the above statement does to pro-choicers, you have put a false motivation into the pro-life movement. You have incorrectly decided that the pro-life movement is about control over women. Just as the pro-choice movement isn't about a desire to kill fetuses, the pro-choice movement isn't about a desire to control women or take their rights away.

It is, and has always been about protecting the lives of innocents who are unable to protect themselves.

 

That would work if it wasn't based on the fantasy that the fetus is a human being with rights.

Because it isn't a person, it doesn't have rights, you are inventing a right that doesn't currently exist.

Right now women have the right to choose what to do with their own body, that is the very real right that you seek to remove.
Because you believe that you are morally superior, and are better suited to make that choice.

 

Interestingly, your statement actually backs up the statement I made above. And you are still falsely projecting a belief.

There have been many times in history that post-birth humans have been considered exactly the same way that you consider pre-birth humans. They were wrong.

Fetuses actually do have the right to life already - at least in many states and countries they do. Every state and country that has a late-term abortion ban acknowledges that fetuses do have the right to life after a certain time. The pro-life movement is a push to extend that right further - either into more states and countries, or earlier in the child's life.

 

The Constitution does state that you have a right to life in the 5th Amendment:

 

The only practical effect of the pro-life movement getting it's way would be to remove a woman's right to decide what happens to her body.
That is why the "Pro-Life" movement is considered "Anti-Woman" by some.
That is answer to the question posed in the OP.

There is a whole alternate way of thinking about it that requires a belief in the supernatural, and assigning rights to invisible imaginary beings that powers the "Pro-Life" movement, and that "logically" would lead to the banning of most Birth control, because at the root, "Pro-Life" has the goal of punishing women who engage in sex, because it offends an invisible sky monster.