Uh, maybe you should've guessed from post #124 how seriously I take this crap thread.... Do you REALLY think dueling is an issue???
If you make a bad argument, I will point it out. That's what I have done with you several times, even though we agree with the base conclusion.
"Pro choice" is disingenuous, all sides on the issue agree in limiting at least some of the woman's choices. But I will give props to whoever came up with that marketing term.
No not all sides. Each "side" is divided into several camps. On the pro-life side (speaking about marketing) some hold to no abortions for any reason, not even if the mother's life is in danger. Other will allow for the saving the mother's life only, and still other's will also allow abortion for rape and/or incest pregnancies. As to pro-choice, there are those of us who do hold that the woman can indeed choose to have an abortion at any time, including just prior to birth. That is not a claim that any woman would, only that she possesses that right.
I would say that most people (like 85%+ in my life experience) agree in some form of limiting the woman's choice. Especially when asked if she should have the right to abort for any reason just prior to birth. So I rephrase: pro choice is a disingenuous way to describe most people who believe abortion should be legal. You can usually get them to admit that it should be illegal under certain circumstances.
Pro-Choice means protecting women's right to bodily autonomy, having the right to choose abortion or gestation. Anti-Choicers want to have complete control over women and "choose" for them...a gross violation of rights.
His point is dead on. Even most pro choice advocates, support the laws that make abortion in the third trimester illegal, unless it is to save the mother's life. And RvW does allow for such laws, because they are usually after viability at that point. If the right of bodily autonomy is not protected right up to the day before birth, then is it really full out pro- choice?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Pro-Choice means protecting women's right to bodily autonomy, having the right to choose abortion or gestation. Anti-Choicers want to have complete control over women and "choose" for them...a gross violation of rights. …..the protection of the fetus after viability is a sop to the Anti-Women's right people....it was easy to give because mentally stable women do not ask for an abortion after that.... This may surprise you but Canada has no abortion laws and the women there do NOT all wait for 8 1/2 to 9 months just for the "fun" of having an abortion... I know you may find that hard to believe of women, most Anti-Choicers think women LOVE doing it on a constant basis but they don't really.. But do I think they have a right to an abortion at any time? Yes....and they do....if their life or health or life or health of the fetus is in jeopardy, they can have an abortion after 23 weeks....I know Anti-Choicers would prefer the woman just die for the fetus but luckily there are still sane people who believe women have rights.. Still nothing to do with dueling...
My ultimate point is not to denigrate (sorry for the term disingenuous; I'm really talking about whoever sat around and came up with that brilliant term). I suspect that whatever animates the minds of most prochoicers to abhor the idea of abortion close to birth is the same thing going on in the heads of prolifers, just earlier. Prochoicers and prolifers share something in common here, and I think there is some human principle at work here that has yet to be fully drawn out.
This is what I am talking about. You are making an emotional response based upon an emotional reaction. At no time have I claimed that women have abortions for "no good reason" (i.e. other than life threatening) at such a late stage. There is also your implication that all of the Pro-choice movement holds the exact same standard as each other. Simply not true. Even within the movement, people don't think a woman has that right after viability. Keep in mind that having a right has NOTHING to do with whether that right is ever exercised or not. Your responses seem to indicate that you believe that those who talk about a woman having that right is going to exercise it. I really have no idea why you keep addressing me as if I were a pro-life advocate. Also appeal to exteremism. You;ll need to show that it is most. While I do not disagree that a significant number do hold to such, and that they are rather vocal about it, I find little evidence to show that most pro-life advocates hold that particular belief. Right there, you limit the right. You used an "if" in the right. Either the right extends absolute or it is limited. Which is it? Since Global Citizen said nothing about dueling in this particular subthread, why would you throw out that strawman?
If a woman can have a fetus killed after 23 weeks then obviously she has a right to! Why did you? Please don't use your emotions, use facts...
OHGAWD! You think you have a point....OK, no emotions just NO good argument about whatever you are arguing about If a woman can have a fetus killed after 23 weeks then obviously she has a right to!
