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

Did you intentionally pull out the wrong definition for the word "right" and think that it would somehow defend your argument. Let me give you the correct definition for the word in this context:

"a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." This is the accepted meaning in this context of the word. Wikipedia has a good discussion on what rights are - you really should read it before you try discussing rights.

When you do read it, you'll learn that the most basic, natural human rights are those of life, liberty and property. It is the basic right to life, the right that John Locke wrote about and the right that was cited in the declaration of independence, that I was obviously speaking about. This right, just as the others, can be taken away, but that doesn't make it any less of a right.

 

now you have to prove that a fetus is a child, can you do that?

 

So because a definition doesn't fit your agenda it is wrong .. since when has that been the case.

Right - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/right

and if you had read it you would see that it doesn't actually say "life, liberty and property", it states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Do you know what unalienable means BTW - "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor" - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/inalienable so please do tell me how something that is unalienable ie not subject to being taken away, can be taken away .. It is not unalienable if someone can take it away.

 

There needs to be a baseline or definitive standard. So, can you prove any of us are human?

 

Not the question asked, can you prove that a fetus is a child ... never said anything about being human.

 

Well that is a stupid response. The woman's life is at risk, but her life is a convenience over the life of the fetus. You can't get more insensitive than that, and you think you are being so moral?

 

Your statistics are not accurate. And even if it were just 1%, those women have the right to choose to live over a fetus.


Wiki: Reasons for abortions
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health

 

If the life of the fetus may be destroyed while within the body, there is no consistent argument against the same mother destroying that same life the minute or the week after birth in it is in the mother’s home. Whether the baby is four centimeters below the skin or lying in a crib within the home, the right should be the same according to this argument, for both the body and the home are the property of the mother. If life is precious, it must have value in both places, and the right to life supersedes the inconvenience of the pregnant woman. This problem is well illustrated with a “failed” abortion in which a live baby is delivered instead of a dead one. If it was legal and moral to kill the infant in the uterus, what do you do if the doctor fails and delivers a live baby? Do we suddenly change the rules and kill the baby? Or keep the baby and sue the doctor for malpractice?

 

Actually, until the Born Alive Protection Act was passed, there was no difference between a fetus and a newborn - if an abortion resulted in a living child, those children were neglected until they died. At least now, the protections afforded living children at least extend to the moment of birth - regardless of whether or not the child was wanted.

 

One's limitations do not make one's position valid.

Onlt for those unable to rationalize facts.

You have to show that it exists first. Why not respond to the thread specifically about this?

 

How often do you think "abortion resulted in a living child"?

 

But why should the doctors be mandated to keep the baby alive after it's born (if it was born from a failed abortion)? After all, it was early enough in the pregnancy and development that could be aborted? Pro-choicers who criticized Obama because he voted against the law which required doctors to use life-saving treatment on infants, are HYPOCRITES!

 

Here is an interesting little discussion that quotes a few sources that indicate at least 77 children survive abortions each year.

Here is a website dedicated to abortion survivors. One part of one story is:

Regardless, apparently it does happen. At least now the law protects them.

 

How many months premature was that baby born? How many months into the pregnancy was it aborted?

 

All abortion survivors survived a saline abortion. This article says there were two survivors. Saline abortions are no longer done, or at least they are very rare because they are dangerous. Abortion is already illegal at the point a fetus could possibly survive, except for saving the life or health of the pregnant woman or in cases where the fetus will not survive anyway. In the case where a woman's life or health is threatened by the pregnancy, a C-section will be done if it is at all feasible. So it does not happen these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instillation_abortion

The method of instillation abortion was first developed in 1934 by Eugen Aburel.[4] It is most frequently used between the 16th and 24th week of pregnancy, but its rate of use has declined dramatically in recent years.[2] In 1968, abortion by the instillation of saline solution accounted for 28% of those procedures performed legally in San Francisco, California.[5] Intrauterine instillation (of all kinds) declined from 10.4% of all legal abortions in the U.S. in 1972 to 1.7% in 1985,[6] falling to 0.8% of the total incidence of induced abortion in the United States during 2002,[7] and 0.1% in 2007.[8]..........

Once in common practice, abortion by intrauterine instillation has fallen out of favor, due to its association with serious adverse effects and its replacement by procedures which require less time and cause less physical discomfort.[11].......

There have been at least two documented cases of unsuccessful instillation abortions that resulted in live births.[14]

 

How do we know that "it does happen"? All we have are the anecdotal stories of alleged pro-life "victims." The following factual information puts those stories in doubt:

 

Interesting story.

Notice that the source you used doesn't use actual numbers - those would be shockingly big. Instead it uses percentages to imply that the number is small. We all know that the number of babies born alive after abortions is very small. There is no argument there. Just for fun, lets look at the numbers she is talking about:

So we have 10% of abortions, which equals about 120,000 abortions. Of those some are preceded by an injection to ensure demise (which means the majority must not include that injection). That is thousands of babies surgically removed that aren't killed by lethal injection first. The other number she chose to leave out is for partial birth abortion:

This would account for about 2,400 abortions. I'd say that is still a pretty large number - even though her phrasing tries to make it sound small. I'm sure the number of the babies delivered in either procedure that survive is much smaller; however, it does appear to be greater than zero.

Here is an equally unbiased source quoting the testimony of a representative (who is also an emergency medical physician). He said:

http://prospect.org/article/so-what-born-alive-infant-protection-act-really

Doctor Gosnell's recent conviction for killing babies that survived abortions proves that babies do still survive abortions - and that some doctors are willing to either kill those surviving infants or neglect them until they die.

Considering the fact that nearly 20% of the US has no restriction on late-term abortion (ten states and Washington DC), there is a reasonable likelihood that a few such abortions in those states may end up with a surviving child. Those are the reason for such a law. Any living birth deserves to be protected.

 

You know....if we provided better education to children at a time prior to a Female Child being capable of becoming Pregnant...say....9 years old...although even at this age it is possible for her to become pregnant as it has happened before....we could virtually eliminate the vast majority of Abortions of Unwanted Pregnancies.

In this Modern Day and Age we have several layers or levels specific to preventing pregnancy....such layers or levels should start with.....

EDUCATION about practicing abstinence as well as education of various forms of Birth Control....as well as Education to dispels certain MYTHS such as the male Pulling out his penis before ejaculation will guarantee no pregnancy....as pre-seminal fluid contains some sperm....and a variety of other myths that a young sexually active kid might believe.

Education about various STD'S...which I guarantee you after any kid watches one of these STD specific movies including such issues as HIV or AID'S.....will place in that kid's mind that possibility plus perhaps keeping that kid a virgin a bit longer.

Education about not only Birth Control but MORNING AFTER PILL and PLAN B....as it is certainly better for a young girl or woman to take a simple pill after unprotected sex which will prevent the possibility of a Fertilized Egg to implant itself in the Uterine Wall as these drugs prevent this and thus make pregnancy impossible if taken the next morning or with that short period of time after unprotected sex.

So imagine some 13 year old Girl who has no education specific to Pregnancy Prevention who had unprotected sex....is now pregnant....and because her parents might be Bible Belt Born Again's that never have talked to her about sex and are strict religious zealots....this poor 13 year old girl hides her pregnancy which could have been prevented if she was educated to know just pulling out before ejaculating will not allow you to get pregnant is a lie....or knew that she could just go to the drug store the next morning and buy Plan B or Morning After and this would not allow her to get pregnant.

So since she does not know such things she hides this pregnancy till her belly is large enough so her parents find out and they force her to have the child...but she does not want to be a Mom at 13 so she either goes to another state to abort the Fetus or pays some Hack Back Ally Abortion specialist who might hurt her.

AboveAlpha

 

At 16 weeks, the fetus is not viable. The dilation and evacuation procedure used does not produce an intact fetus.

Does Pigman mean 1,270 abortion survivors for all years up to 2010? Does he mean in the US or internationally? More information is needed.

Gosnell was convicted of murder. In those cases, he didn't perform an abortion at all. He induced labor and killed the babies after they were born. Abortion is defined as "a medical operation in which a developing baby is removed from a woman’s body so that it is not born alive." If the baby is born alive and then killed, that is infanticide and is already illegal.

Being legal doesn't mean it's available. There are only 4 abortion providers in the U.S. who perform late term abortions and they are bound by ethics standards.

And it is. We have laws against infanticide.

 

The word "anti-woman" is an appeal to the emotions fallacy.

 

I am not saying your anti-woman Sam....but after reading some of the posts specific to this topic and others talking about Abortion I have noticed such terms by some men labeling Women as Feminatzi's, Woman's Rights taken Too Far....etc.

Now there are people who are Pro-Life I can respect as I am both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

No one want's to see late term abortions but at the same time the VAST majority of American's are pro Education, Contraception, Morning After and Plan B advocates.

But here is the problem....there are some men and a few women who view strong, intelligent and vocal to their rights women as dangerous to their ideology.

I have never been able to understand why some men view strong intelligent women as a threat as for me....I find such women as EXTREMELY ATTRACTIVE and I certainly want a women who is intelligent and can think for herself over another women who cannot.

Besides...any man who considers any woman a threat is NOT A REAL MAN!!!

AboveAlpha

 

There is a small percentage of pro lifers who truly hate women and simply oppose abortion because they know it annoys them (or some of them), but true pro lifers do not hate women at all. they just see all humans as equal regardless of gender or age, and are disturbed that women think killing their own unborn children, often violently, is somehow a woman's right.

Pro choicers commonly like to accuse all pro lifers of being women haters as part of their bullying tactics. Its a way of forcing conformity. Want to be a democrat? You have to be pro choice otherwise youre a woman hater. Want to be libertarian? You have to be pro choice, otherwise you're a woman hater. Want to be a feminist? You have to be pro choice otherwise your a woman hater. Political groups will actively exclude you if you identify as pro life, or even just refuse to identify as pro choice (like i do).

Its rather ironic really as the most common reason women "need" abortion is so they can fit into a male world. You want to top your class or climb the corporate ladder? You must denounce what makes you uniquely female (carrying and birthing children). I still struggle to see how wanting to stop a woman's natural bodily function is considered feminism.

 

forced abortion or forced child birth are both evil

let the women choose for herself

.

 

And it follows that anyone who wants to taker away women's right to their own bodies is evil.


That's how evil thrives and builds, by slowly taking away certain groups rights....

There is no way a person can want to force women to give birth and NOT hate women.


Slave owners may not have hated their slaves but it didn't make any difference to the slaves....they were still slaves.

And that is exactly what these Anti-Choicers want for women, slavery.