Why the Pro-Choice movement is a complete joke

well i'll explain it to you.

They say children in the womb arent real people because society doesnt deem them people. the laws state they are not people

so how is this different from the way blacks were treated in our not so distant past? they werent considered humans by society. and neither were the jews in germany during WW2. they werent considered humans by society... so what gives?

so if society deemed that everyone over the age of 80 was no longer a human and is to be terminated... does that mean that they are no longer humans? because people voted that way?

society doesnt determine who is human and who is not. I thought we learned that lesson from nazi germany and our own slave days but i guess we haven't...

 

This thread should have been titled "Why do pro-lifers use the same bogus arguments over and over again".

The problem with all your examples is that in them, the decision that a born living person wasn't a person was made purely on a whim. There was no evidence that a difference was present between those people other than the one manufactured to further the agenda of the oppressor. That's simply not the case for abortion. There are clear, gigantic, unambiguous, objective differences between a fetus and a born person. None of those differences exist when we're talking about two born people. You can pretend they don't exist, it seems to be a skill for the pro-life crowd, but pretending something doesn't exist doesn't actually change objective reality.

No, they would still be humans, they just wouldn't be people in the eyes of the law. There's still only minute differences between an 80 year old and a 20 year old, and the situational factors that make abortion something a mother should be allowed to choose simply don't exist for someone who's been born. You're trying to take arguments for abortion and use them in situations that have nothing to do with abortion. Not only that, but those arguments you're trying to use clearly make the distinction between a born person and a fetus, meaning you're not only applying them to an incorrect situation, your application of them itself is also incorrect.

Not who is human, who is a legal person. And we did learn that lesson. That's why the law recognizes everyone who's been born as a legal person.

 

The way the current law is set up, a child is only considered a person when they are wanted. It has nothing to do with a concrete standard of development and everything to do with an arbitrary and whimsical determination of value by an external source. Which is about as gross of a human rights violation as it gets. It is the exact same attitude that determined that people with black skin were property in the south and people in the north.

 

You are incorrect. A child is considered a person when they are born regardless of whether they are wanted or not.

And you continue to make the bogus correlation between abortion and slavery, which even with bolded print, is still just as bogus. In your other post you mentioned that slave owners were not criminals either because the law was on their side, and you are correct about that. The law at the time did not classify them as criminals. However, the only thing missing is that there was no basis for the law to be that way other than the fact that slave owners wanted to have slaves and amended the law accordingly. They had no burden of proof to show that a black man was less of a person than a white man and couldn't have objectively done so anyway. It was a fake distinction invented by people who wanted to own slaves to increase their own personal gain.

The distinction in abortion is clear, unambiguous, and unquestionable. It is biological. In fact, pro-lifers don't even argue about that distinction, they argue about what it means. You would prefer that a fetus take precedence over it's mother, while pro-choicers prefer to allow the mother control of her own body. They don't want control over someone's else's body, like slave owners did, because there is no someone else, figuratively or literally. There is no other person over which to exercise control.

 

Here is another similarity: During slavery it was argued that slavery was in the best interest of the Negroes because they were not able to make good decisions for themselves, and that they were better off under slavery.
With abortion, many pro-choicers are doing the same thing, trying to argue that abortion is in the best interest of the fetus, because otherwise it would live a bad life, and that is it better for the fetus to die.

 

A rocks not any more or less person because people have denied the personhood of other people
Neither is a fetus I don’t think a fetus has intelligence and or a sense of self beyond that of animals we don’t consider people so I don’t consider them people if you want to show a human fetus is more of a sentient being then pig or a dog or whatever you think the next highest animal to man is go for it

If you want to argue some animals are people to go for it

If you say it’s not any ones place to judge what a person is or what is not a person don’t deny that a rock is a person

Don’t you dare say a fetus is 1 or you are a hypocrite.

 

Indeed...and that attitude prevailed under Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood). She advocated for 'Negroes' to use abortion as a means to keep them from over-populating. She even prevailed on ministers of black congregations to preach the abortion 'religion' from their pulpits. She felt the message would be more palpable coming from such trusted individuals rather than from a white woman like her.

Yes....This is all part of the progressive, liberal, secular-humanist philosophy where morals are relative.

 

and a human fetus is a person is not a whimsical determination because?

 

Many pro-lifers are doing the same thing, arguing that birth is in the best interest of women because they are not able to make good decisions for themselves, and they are better off risking their health and lives.

 

Margaret Sanger was OPPOSED to abortion.

 

Again, slaves could make decisions just fine. Just because the slave owners said they couldn't didn't actually make it true.

Not so for a fetus.

 

Returning to the original point, the pro choice movement is simply not a joke. According to Gallup.com, males and females both have tendencies towards pro choice. We could argue for hours about how whether unborn fetuses are people or not, by law or by opinion. But, that is not the only factor in deciding whether or not Americans should take the pro choice movement seriously. Personally, I understand all the points pro life supporters offer. Putting an end to a life seems unfathomable, immoral and wrong. But, the fact of the matter is, it is not our choice. It is no one's choice but the mother's. So many things contribute to the choice the mother has to make. Like her conditions. Is she healthy? Is she responsible? Because no matter what, the baby should be born into a good enviroment. Furthermore, who is the father? If it is a case of incest or rape, I believe that the mother has the complete right to abort the baby. Why ask a woman to carry around a reminder of trauma for the majority of a year? Also, Jews and Blacks aren't valid equivalents in this debate. They are just not the same and the situations were completely different.

 

a fetus cant make a decision to want to live? really? how about you let the fetus' nature play out and see what happens

 

It's in a vegetable's "nature" to grow. A fetus can't make any decision because it doesn't have the requisite nervous system until at least the end of the second trimester.

 

your point?

 

My point is why do you keep peddling your extremist nonsense as if it were rational?

 

He's incorrect? I don't think so. He said "The way the current law is set up, a child is only considered a person when they are wanted."

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

If the child is wanted it falls under the unborn victims of violence act. If it's unwanted it's aborted. One's a person with 14th amendment rights to life, the other isn't.

 

not killing innocent humans is extremist nonsense? if thats the case i will continue to peddle it

 

Interesting piece in that

Seems abortion doesn't fall under it.

 

I didn't say it did. I was just supporting unifier's claim "a child is only considered a person when they are wanted" Which this legislation does seem to do.

 

What would be really interesting is a legal test of the mother's competence to determine whether she is of sound mind to make the choice to want or to not want her child. Can a mother who loses her child due to a drug overdose be prosecuted? Can a mentally ill mother who's autonomy has been suspended for health concerns be forced to carry a child to term on the basis that she's not capable of making such a choice?

 

Ok fair enough

 

After reading it again I can (half) answer my own question.

The mother is exempted from the law so the drug overdose issue is not an issue. But I do still wonder about the mental patient. Can a mother prosecute a care provider that allows her to get an abortion when she has had her autonomy suspended?

 

Abortion should be illegal in all cases but the life of the mother IMO.

 

Oh, you're a moderate Republican, then?