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

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by AndrogynousMale, Sep 13, 2013.

  1. johnmayo

    johnmayo New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    13,847
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can I take a clump out of your skull then?

    9 elders in robes are not science, more like hocus pocus and opinions.

    Why add that in?

    Not the right of due process.

    Nor does it say it is not a person.

    Mine.

    50 million dead babies since the 70s.

    If they didnt abort them they would be alive.

    Human life is lost during abortions

    No, really. They use poison and dismemberment.

    I know right? Super violent and super gross - and then they say if you dont support abortion you don't like women - who are 50% of the humans aborted.
    50 million dead is nothing to scoff at.

    That the left has always been the party that defines what is and isnt human, with no regards to things like DNA.

    Probably not much
    No, I think it is a continuation of the rape and rape is a deadly felony that gives rise to a right for a woman to use deadly force to stop the rape. I dont think they should be allowed to use deadly force to save themselves from inconvenience.

    What year? Did they run a Presidential candidate that disagreed?

    Backwards, most conservatives do, as do most of Americans.

    They fight the murderous thieving left.

    I did. Rape, in the case the life of the mother is at risk - self defense standards say you can use deadly force.

    Nonsense. You assume a risk. No one said any of those things were 100% fool proof. That is like saying, I wore my seat belt I shouldn't have to pay for the damages my car caused.

    The Creator made us to have sex and then kill the babies that result? You lost me here, walk me through this logic please.

    Logic. Nevermind, it is a foreign concept for the left and will take me all day explaining.

    Should you only have to pay for those consequences you intend subjectively? Or by the actions you voluntarily undertake objectively?

    That killing a million or so people a year is bad for any society - even if it means those people's parents could have partied for a little longer.

    I dont intend to get into a car accident, do I have to pay for the damages I caused when I do?

    No, in this case neither I wanted to get into an accident and the other person didn't want their car hit. Neither intended the result, why should one of us have to pay consequences? Shouldn't an innocent party be murdered so we can get on with our lives?
     
  2. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    For the sake of this discussion, let's just say that Casey Anthony was guilty.

    Ending a pregnancy is done with intent and malice. Location does not determine personhood. Most women have abortions because having a child is too stressful for them. How is that any different from what Casey Anthony did?
     
  3. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    for the sake of reality let's not.

    Ever heard of self-defence.
     
  4. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, I did. But that's totally irrelevant, since about 91% of abortions do not happen for that reason.
     
  5. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It very well may be a contributing factor, but certainly not the main reason.

    Glad to hear it, you are a minority in the pro-life groups.

    Then perhaps I am miss reading your comments and if so I apologize for doing so, I would say it was a reaction to what the majority of pro-lifers post concerning the so called breakdown of the traditional family.

    Where would you like to start -

    1969 - Governor Ronald Reagan of California made what he later admitted was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life. Seeking to eliminate the strife and deception often associated with the legal regime of fault-based divorce, Reagan signed the nation's first no-fault divorce bill. If you are looking for a main reason look no further than the law signed by the then Governor Reagan.

    If you put a marker point on 1969 on your graph you can see that immediately after no-fault divorce bill was signed into law divorce rates started to rise, put another marker in at 1979 which is when most of the states had also adopted a no-fault divorce bill and you can see another reason (and to me a far more credible reason) why there was a surge in divorces between 1969 and 1979.

    The divorce revolution of the 1960s and '70s was over-determined. The nearly universal introduction of no-fault divorce helped to open the floodgates, especially because these laws facilitated unilateral divorce and lent moral legitimacy to the dissolution of marriages. The sexual revolution, too, fueled the marital tumult of the times: Spouses found it easier in the Swinging Seventies to find extramarital partners, and came to have higher, and often unrealistic, expectations of their marital relationships. Increases in women's employment as well as feminist consciousness-raising also did their part to drive up the divorce rate, as wives felt freer in the late '60s and '70s to leave marriages that were abusive or that they found unsatisfying.

    There is a rather long article on divorce here, of which the above is just a small portion.
     
  6. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Every right can be taken away. Being able to be taken from you doesn't make it any less of a right.

    As for being legal prior to the 19th century, that doesn't mean that they didn't and don't deserve to have their right to life recognized. Everyone has the right to liberty - to self determination, yet prior to 1865 slaves didn't have that right. Does that mean that they didn't deserve their right to liberty?

    Of course not. In the same way, the unborn deserve to have their right to life legally protected - even if modern laws don't currently do so.
     
  7. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    not at the moment they don't, now why is that .. oh yes abortion is legal.
     
  8. Pasithea

    Pasithea Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. Prove it or stop using it.

    Do you honestly believe every woman who has an abortion does so with malice aforethought?

    And just to clarify what that means.

    mal·ice
    ˈmaləs/Submit
    noun
    1.
    the intention or desire to do evil; ill will.

    mal·ice a·fore·thought
    nounLAW
    noun: malice aforethought
    1.
    the intention to kill or harm, which is held to distinguish unlawful killing from murder.

    Remember, there are many different forms of 'murder'. There is 1st degree murder with involves intent to do harm with malice aforethought, there is 2nd degree murder which is not premeditated and is done through assault of the victim without the intent to kill, there is voluntary manslaughter where the person kills with intent but there are mitigating circumstances, there is involuntary manslaughter without malice aforethought and there are mitigating circumstances and really many, many more. Which, if any of these or others not listed, could be used in regards to an abortion?
     
  9. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What does that have anything to do with my argument?
     
  10. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Do you honestly believe that Casey Anthony's actions were motivated by malice aforethought?
     
  11. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry but moving the goalposts just doesn't cut it, you made the assertion as follows; "Before abortion was legalized, the unborn had a right to life.", that statement is incorrect as shown.

    If a right can be taken away then it isn't a right, a right is defined as "true or correct as a fact", if it can be taken away then it isn't "true or correct as a fact", the right to life is a fallacy, it is not a universal or inherited right, the moment you take away the right to life from ANYONE regardless of the circumstances it is no longer a universal right, it is a right based on arbitrary decisions
     
  12. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What's a goalpost?
     
  13. Pasithea

    Pasithea Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you want to make this thread about Casey Anthony and whether or not she killed her daughter? (Which by the way cannot be considered an abortion since her daughter was already born.)

    a·bor·tion
    əˈbôrSHən/Submit
    noun
    1.
    the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy
     
  14. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what argument, all I see from you is the same old mantra that has been answered countless times.

    Do you know the difference between "could" and "is"

    Self defence could be used to keep abortion legal IF Roe was ever overturned.

    Self defence is not used currently because Roe is the standing law that makes abortion legal.

    If you don't get it now then you never will.
     
  15. Pasithea

    Pasithea Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a type of fallacy in formal debate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
     
  16. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, but the reason why Casey Anthony killed her daughter (assuming she was guilty) was not that much different than the reason why most women have abortions.
     
  17. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Self defense is not relevant to the reasons why most women who have abortions have abortions, so why do you keep bringing it up?
     
  18. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you don't get it now then you never will.
     
  19. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Explain it to me, then.
     
  20. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Already did a couple of posts ago.

    What is happening now as far as reasons for abortion is concerned is irrelevant to what could be used should Roe ever be overturned, there is no need for a woman to try to use self defence laws now in order to get an abortion because Roe is the standing law that makes them legal.

    do you get it now?
     
  21. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I disagree with your stance, but I get what you're trying to say.
     
  22. Pasithea

    Pasithea Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which is WHAT? While your at it share with us the proof that she killed her daughter please.
     
  23. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
  24. Pasithea

    Pasithea Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your link is full of all kinds of crazy stuff as well as the mention that maybe her father did it.

     
  25. Right Wing

    Right Wing New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dead children maybe?
     

Share This Page