Pro-life or anti-choice?

[Scrabaholic]

fertility rates going down is good only when the cause of it is becuase of development, whats no good is the rate going down due to women having children at later ages

Why is that not good?

 

[TypicalRussian]

Why is that not good?

cause it isnt

 

[weaver2]

It's not an accusation. It's a challenge that you still haven't answered. Restating my question doesn't address it. Why is it okay to kill one but not the other?

I have answered it. I said nobody is aborting(killing) normal, viable 33week old fetuses. It isn't happening unless the the abortion is therapeutic, meaning either the mother or the fetus is going to die or be permanently damaged. If you think late 3rd trimester abortions are happening find proof. The study is not proof.

You either have not read the study you posted as proof or you are simply ignoring the parts of the study that don't support your claim that 3rd trimester fetuses are being "killed. for the same reasons given by women aborting in the 1st trimester, which it appears that you have personally decided are unnecessary and frivolous. The study was of women who abort early to late in the 2nd trimester of their pregnancies. The fact that you choose to imply 2nd trimester abortions are very late term 3rd trimester abortion is just dishonest.

The author of the study says this: "But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment." .

. Yes, the data says that the women in the study women seeking late term (meaning 2nd term in this study)abortions are not seeking therapeutic abortions because women who had had therapeutic abortion were eliminated from the study The study specifically excluded all therapeutic abortions done in the 2nd trimester. Since the study did not reveal the % of therapeutic abortions in the US you have absolutely no idea how many non-therapeutic abortions are being done.

You have said that to be a human being, you must be born. So, if you really believe that, you must believe that the 33-week old premature infant is a human being but the 33-week old infant still in utero is not, despite their being the exact same organism. Is that true or not?

That's right a premature infant is a child with legal rights because it has been born. A 33 week old infant still in the womb is not a child. It is not born. It has no legal rights. How many more times would you like me say that?

If I stated that only 1.3% of black Americans are enslaved, would that satisfy you that slavery has been sufficiently stamped out?

I'm not going honor the patently illogical comparison of fetus with slaves. Those that don't understand the difference between a slave and a fetus have no business commenting on either slavery or abortion.

Thousands of such children are aborted every single year. It doesn't matter that they represent a small percentage. We can't kill people just because they're sick or have a disability, any more than we can for their being inconvenient or untimely.

Your deep concern for a non-sentient unit of life that is a maxim of 2.9 inches long and .8 ounces in weight when it is aborted would be more admirable should you show the same deep concern for those already born that we do kill by painful death and suffering by refusing them: health insurance, safe neighborhoods, foods without E.coli, water without lead, decent police protection. What about those killed by corporate behavior: BP, PG&E and Perdue Pharmaceuticals come to mind first. Interestingly, the same people crying out about women killing their babies and the terrible loss of human life seem to think war is glorious. Shall we tell the millions of refugee mothers with dead children they died gloriously?

Since you show so little concern for real people suffering real deaths, I'm guessing that aborted fetuses aren't really what you're concerned about, but rather something to do withe the women that have made a decision independent of your input. I'm guessing when it comes right down to the wire women who abort spread their legs and ought to be punished for their slutty ways.

Don't use that study again to defend an anti-abortion agenda. You haven't read it. It doesn't support your point of view. All you do is lie about it and you don't understand it.

 

[cpwill]

Translation: Pro-choice really believes everybody has a right to choose what is best for them and it's dishonest the for pro-life movement to claim that their real agenda is to murder babies.
Pro life people really believe that abortion is killing babies and it is dishonest for the pro-choice movement to claim their real agenda is to require pregnant women to give birth.

Yeah, Kumbyah and we're all honest together. Except we are not.

Except - yeah, actually, most folks don't think they are the bad guys and yes, actually, what you laid out above is correct.

History says conservative Christians were initially for legal abortion until Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich needed a new cause to rally conservative Christian's political power. ...

:yawn: the pro-life movement has a similar story it tells about Eugenics, planned parenthood, and so on that is supposed to secretly prove that the pro choice position really is about killing babies and so on and so forth, and it's just as B.S. as that tale. Half of America isn't in a giant conspiracy to conceal their evil motives.

You are free to disagree with them, but, people who think differently than you actually can believe what they claim to

 

[cpwill]

Well what the hell do pro-life people really want?

Generally, they want to expand protections for the most vulnerable in our society.

They obviously don't support women

:shrug: this is incorrect. Compare, if you like, there number of pregnancy centers out there to the number of abortion clinics.

They obviously don't support the reduction of abortion.

:shrug: this is also incorrect. Again, you seem to be assuming that people who disagree with you must secretly agree with all your assumptions.

The have killed abortion providers, set fire to clinics, enacted laws that force PP out of the state

Actions which seem pretty congruent with a desire to reduce abortions.

 

[cpwill]

1. nonsense, I impose my will on nobody, that is why I am pro-choice and you are I suppose pro-life, which do want to impose not only their view but also their will on other people.

I stated that you were projecting (imposing) you assumptions onto those you disagree with. That was, and remains, ****ty logic.

For example, here:

2. you claim abortion to be something it is not so you are willfully misrepresenting it

This argument foolishly assumes that I hold the same position on "what abortion is" as you do, which would be a necessary requirement for the following argument that - by describing it in a manner you disagree with - I am saying something other than that which I believe to be true. It is no more intellectually credible than if I were to respond by assuming that you shared my presuppositions and were thus being dishonest when you presented as if you didn't.

3. abortion is a human behavior,

Sure. So is rape, fratricide, slavery, and a host of activities that are abuses of others rights.

4. Using your body in a way to damage or put others in danger :lamo And this has what to do with abortion? Nobody's body is being used to damage or put others in danger when having an abortion.

That, of course, is precisely the point under contention. Pro Lifers disagree.

 

[cpwill]

Because the government doesn't own women's uteruses. That's why. The woman's uterus belongs to her and her only.

Interesting. So, the state can't tell us what to do with our bodies because we own ourselves?

 

[soylentgreen]

.



:shrug: this is incorrect. Compare, if you like, there number of pregnancy centers out there to the number of abortion clinics.

Now that is a wonderful example of sexism. Pro life carer about women because they can be come pregnant and not because they want to do anything else but be pregnant. Are you arguing that the only use a woman has is that she can give birth.

They obviously don't support the reduction of abortion.
this is also incorrect. Again, you seem to be assuming that people who disagree with you must secretly agree with all your assumptions.

The have killed abortion providers, set fire to clinics, enacted laws that force PP out of the state
Actions which seem pretty congruent with a desire to reduce abortions.

So it is wrong to assume they don't support the reduction of abortion. But it correct to say they kill abortion doctors because it is congruent with a desire to reduce abortions.

Sounds like you will say anything to support pro life even if you have to contradict yourself

 

[weaver2]

Except - yeah, actually, most folks don't think they are the bad guys and yes, actually, what you laid out above is correct.



:yawn: the pro-life movement has a similar story it tells about Eugenics, planned parenthood, and so on that is supposed to secretly prove that the pro choice position really is about killing babies and so on and so forth, and it's just as B.S. as that tale. Half of America isn't in a giant conspiracy to conceal their evil motives.

You are free to disagree with them, but, people who think differently than you actually can believe what they claim to

I have absolutely no problem with people that think differently. What I have a problem with is people who lie; people who don't do their homework and spout nonsense, and men that still think women are chattel and tell them how they should feel, think and act about in their private sex lives.

You fall into the people who don't do any homework before they start spouting off. You don't know anything about the history of Pro-choice. It was a spin off of NARAL which was established in 1969 to work against legislation that further restricted abortion. Neither NARAL or Pro-choice has ever had anything to do with the early days of Sanger's anti-abortion crusade and promotion of women's contraceptives which was established in the 1920s. !00% of the people in the pro-Life movement claims Sanger was s pro-abortion eugenicist, eager to kill off minorities. Ask them, they'll tell you exactly that.

Ask them what they believe about women who abort. Not a single pro-Life advocate has ever voiced any opinion about women with an unwanted pregnancy other than if they can't afford a child they shouldn't be having sex and should be punished for their slutty behavior by making her give birth and takei care of a child . I have never heard one pro-life person say that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy has gotten an abortion because she wanted to do what was right for the family and knew that an unwanted child would harm or destroy the life of the family, the women's life or the life of the potential child.

Go back are read Catholic and evangelical history about the anti-abortion movement. You'll find that its goal is political power not reducing abortions. If it was about reducing abortions they would be supporting PP clinics and abortion providers not killing them, burning down their clinics and driving them out of state. If it was about reducing abortion they would be supporting health insurance that provided women's contraceptives and proven sex-education in schools. Do you know any anti-abortionist that supports any of those things.? Neither do I. All they want to do is overturn Roe. When you are willing to listen to only one solution to a problem then your solution is your goal not solving the problem. Pro-Life people do not want to expand protections for the most vulnerable in our society. The fetus is not the most vulnerable. Children, born children are the most vulnerable. No pro-life advocate has ever supported born children's lives.

But you are right half of America is not a giant conspiracy. They've come right out and said again and again on these threads their goal is deny women the right to get an abortion.

Banning abortions never stopped abortions. We've already tried that and have the proof that it doesn't stop abortions. It just made them illegal where they were uncontrolled, unlicensed, unregulated, unprofessional, unsanitary, and ubiquitous.

 

[cpwill]

I have absolutely no problem with people that think differently. What I have a problem with is people who lie; people who don't do their homework and spout nonsense, and men that still think women are chattel and tell them how they should feel, think and act about in their private sex lives.

Now that's irony, right there .

You fall into the people who don't do any homework before they start spouting off. You don't know anything about the history of Pro-choice. It was a spin off of NARAL which was established in 1969 to work against legislation that further restricted abortion. Neither NARAL or Pro-choice has ever had anything to do with the early days of Sanger's anti-abortion crusade and promotion of women's contraceptives which was established in the 1920s. !00% of the people in the pro-Life movement claims Sanger was s pro-abortion eugenicist, eager to kill off minorities. Ask them, they'll tell you exactly that.

No - even Sanger recognized that abortion was a horror. That changes planned parenthood and the story of abortion and eugenics not a whit.

You don't like it when people falsely suggest you actually have wicked motives for holding a position you have honestly arrived at, but then you turn around and accuse vast swathes of people of having wicked motives for a position they honestly arrived at.

Ask them what they believe about women who abort. Not a single pro-Life advocate has ever voiced any opinion about women with an unwanted pregnancy other than if they can't afford a child they shouldn't be having sex and should be punished for their slutty behavior by making her give birth and takei care of a child .

An easily falsifiable statement. Pro Lifers don't consider a child a punishment; we consider it a child.

I have never heard one pro-life person say that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy has gotten an abortion because she wanted to do what was right for the family and knew that an unwanted child would harm or destroy the life of the family, the women's life or the life of the potential child.

It's about as legitimate (if you begin from the position that an unborn child is a child) as claiming that you had to kill your three year old For The Family.

Go back are read Catholic and evangelical history about the anti-abortion movement. You'll find that its goal is political power not reducing abortions.

Sure. Everyone is lying except you. Only you and those who agree with you are pure. No one else argues in good faith. Everyone who claims to disagree with you secretly shares your presuppositions, and is actually just evil. :roll: Convenient.

I swear. It's like arguing with the MAGA crowd with you people.

If it was about reducing abortions they would be supporting PP clinics and abortion providers

Realize that, to someone who actually wants to reduce abortions, that sounds about like saying that, if you really wanted to end slavery, you'd support slave traders.

If it was about reducing abortion they would be supporting health insurance that provided women's contraceptives and proven sex-education in schools. Do you know any anti-abortionist that supports any of those things.?

Yup.

Neither do I.

Given your bigotry, your ignorance is hardly surprising.

Banning abortions never stopped abortions.

Banning rape, murder, and slavery hasn't stopped those things, either. That is not, actually, an argument in their favor, or an argument in allowing them so we can make sure they are done in a safer manner.

 

[Atreus21]

I have answered it. I said nobody is aborting(killing) normal, viable 33week old fetuses. It isn't happening unless the the abortion is therapeutic, meaning either the mother or the fetus is going to die or be permanently damaged. If you think late 3rd trimester abortions are happening find proof. The study is not proof.

Are you opposed to killing the 33 week old baby in utero? Just yes or no.

You either have not read the study you posted as proof or you are simply ignoring the parts of the study that don't support your claim that 3rd trimester fetuses are being "killed. for the same reasons given by women aborting in the 1st trimester, which it appears that you have personally decided are unnecessary and frivolous. The study was of women who abort early to late in the 2nd trimester of their pregnancies. The fact that you choose to imply 2nd trimester abortions are very late term 3rd trimester abortion is just dishonest.

. Yes, the data says that the women in the study women seeking late term (meaning 2nd term in this study)abortions are not seeking therapeutic abortions because women who had had therapeutic abortion were eliminated from the study The study specifically excluded all therapeutic abortions done in the 2nd trimester. Since the study did not reveal the % of therapeutic abortions in the US you have absolutely no idea how many non-therapeutic abortions are being done.

Again, the author said "But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment." Your argument isn't with me. It's with her. In the meantime, if you have evidence to support a claim to the contrary, that all late term abortions are for fetal anomaly or life endangerment, cite it.

That's right a premature infant is a child with legal rights because it has been born. A 33 week old infant still in the womb is not a child. It is not born. It has no legal rights. How many more times would you like me say that?

Just once, in the hopes that you might realize how ridiculous that is. You are literally saying that physical location dictates whether someone is a human being or not. If I said with all seriousness that you're a human being inside the car but not outside, would you accept that argument?

I'm not going honor the patently illogical comparison of fetus with slaves. Those that don't understand the difference between a slave and a fetus have no business commenting on either slavery or abortion.

The point is that quoting percentages is evasive and useless. If I said that only 1.3% of Jews were killed by Nazis, that wouldn't make it all okay.

 

[Peter King]

that is promoting the bad culture for women

basically-date the bad boys and lead men on later-not good

Yup, there it is again, devious slutty women who lead good simple loyal and faithful men into their doom :lamo

More nonsense. You seem to have mistaken men for women because the real bad culture is a male one.

 

[Peter King]

I have posted many evidence

You just gave us personal opinions, you provided zero evidence.

 

[Peter King]

no it doesnt

Actually it did.

 

[Peter King]

what? nobody is telling you cant have unprotected sex but you must face the consequences if you do

There are options after unprotected sex:

1. have the child (and adopt it out but most women do not feel this is a valid option)

2. have a child that will grow up into a bad situation and really have little chance of moving out of poverty

3. take the morning after pill

4. have an early and safe abortion

And the only one who should have a say in that is the pregnant woman.

 

[Peter King]

That, of course, is precisely the point under contention. Pro Lifers disagree.

For which there is no evidence.

 

[weaver2]

Now that's irony, right there .
No - even Sanger recognized that abortion was a horror. That changes planned parenthood and the story of abortion and eugenics not a whit.
You don't like it when people falsely suggest you actually have wicked motives for holding a position you have honestly arrived at, but then you turn around and accuse vast swathes of people of having wicked motives for a position they honestly arrived at.
An easily falsifiable statement. Pro Lifers don't consider a child a punishment; we consider it a child.
It's about as legitimate (if you begin from the position that an unborn child is a child) as claiming that you had to kill your three year old For The Family.
Sure. Everyone is lying except you. Only you and those who agree with you are pure. No one else argues in good faith. Everyone who claims to disagree with you secretly shares your presuppositions, and is actually just evil. :roll: Convenient.
I swear. It's like arguing with the MAGA crowd with you people.
Realize that, to someone who actually wants to reduce abortions, that sounds about like saying that, if you really wanted to end slavery, you'd support slave traders.
Yup. Given your bigotry, your ignorance is hardly surprising.
Banning rape, murder, and slavery hasn't stopped those things, either. That is not, actually, an argument in their favor, or an argument in allowing them so we can make sure they are done in a safer manner.

Read some history. You really do not know much about the movement you support.

 

[weaver2]

Are you opposed to killing the 33 week old baby in utero? Just yes or no.

Why don't you explain exactly why you want someone to answer yes or no to something that is not happening.

Again, the author said "But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment." Your argument isn't with me. It's with her. In the meantime, if you have evidence to support a claim to the contrary, that all late term abortions are for fetal anomaly or life endangerment, cite it.

Your misunderstanding of the study has been explained to you, twice.

Just once, in the hopes that you might realize how ridiculous that is. You are literally saying that physical location dictates whether someone is a human being or not. If I said with all seriousness that you're a human being inside the car but not outside, would you accept that argument?

Again this was explained to you.

The point is that quoting percentages is evasive and useless. If I said that only 1.3% of Jews were killed by Nazis, that wouldn't make it all okay.

the use of % and why they mattered was explained to you.

 

[OceanBlues1]

nobody is forcing you to have unprotected sex

Prolifers do want women forced to stay pregnant and give birth against their will. Which is exactly what abortion bans are created and passed to do.

 

[OceanBlues1]

There are options after unprotected sex:

1. have the child (and adopt it out but most women do not feel this is a valid option)

2. have a child that will grow up into a bad situation and really have little chance of moving out of poverty

3. take the morning after pill

4. have an early and safe abortion

And the only one who should have a say in that is the pregnant woman.

Exactly. And no one else.

 

[cpwill]

For which there is no evidence.

a point on which we also disagree.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[cpwill]

Read some history. You really do not know much about the movement you support.

Nah. What you are doing isn't history, it's Conspiracy theory in an attempt to avoid a very basic an difficult-to-assail point: that Pro Lifers generally actually believe what they claim to believe, and that implying that they don't in order to ascribe wicked motives in support of an ad hominem fallacy is ****ty logic.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Scrabaholic]

cause it isnt

So, you have no argument. I understand.

 

[Scrabaholic]

You either have not read the study you posted as proof or you are simply ignoring the parts of the study that don't support your claim that 3rd trimester fetuses are being "killed. for the same reasons given by women aborting in the 1st trimester, which it appears that you have personally decided are unnecessary and frivolous. The study was of women who abort early to late in the 2nd trimester of their pregnancies. The fact that you choose to imply 2nd trimester abortions are very late term 3rd trimester abortion is just dishonest.

. Yes, the data says that the women in the study women seeking late term (meaning 2nd term in this study)abortions are not seeking therapeutic abortions because women who had had therapeutic abortion were eliminated from the study The study specifically excluded all therapeutic abortions done in the 2nd trimester. Since the study did not reveal the % of therapeutic abortions in the US you have absolutely no idea how many non-therapeutic abortions are being done.

Wow, how dishonest, eh?

 

[OceanBlues1]

... Pro Lifers generally actually believe what they claim to believe, and that implying that they don't in order to ascribe wicked motives in support of an ad hominem fallacy is ****ty logic.

Okay. Do prolifers believe that women who choose to have sex should be punished by being forced to stay pregnant and give birth against their will?