Pro-life or anti-choice?

[cpwill]

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?

No; for a couple of reasons, but, mainly because once again you are projecting opposition to your motives (take care of the young women involved) onto those who disagree with your means (kill the kid).

We don't see babies as punishment, so, that formulation is no more accurate a depiction of what we being than the claim that pro choicers believe that children who are inconvenient or unwanted by their parents should be punished with death.

Do you consider child support payments a punishment we generally force on men to punish them for being fathers?

 

[TypicalRussian]

So, you have no argument. I understand.

thats common sense

 

[TypicalRussian]

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.

because the women chose to do it 99% of the time

 

[TypicalRussian]

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.

number 4 ought to be illegal as it is killing

other options though, legal in my book

 

[TypicalRussian]

Actually it did.

well no

 

[TypicalRussian]

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

I provided scientific citations to prove life begins at conception

 

[TypicalRussian]

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.

what I am saying is true and has been backed by science

 

[Atreus21]

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

I am always intrigued by evasiveness to straightforward questions. If a woman sought an abortion at 33 weeks, which is legal, would you support it? Yes, or no.

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

So when the author said the data suggest that women don't have late-term abortions for reason of fetal abnormality, she didn't understand her own study either? Yes, or no.

 

[weaver2]

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

It's always comforting to belong to a like-thinking group, CP. Nobody has the right tell you how you should manage your private life. Enjoy.

 

[Jonsa]

Abortion has cut black crime rates. So there is that benefit.

technically true racist bull****. you do it well.

 

[soylentgreen]

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

If that is true then why do they resort to telling lies and misinforming people about abortion. That they might be stupid enough to believe the lies or simply just disingenuous enough not to care that they are lies puts your opinion on them to the question.

 

[weaver2]

I am always intrigued by evasiveness to straightforward questions. If a woman sought an abortion at 33 weeks, which is legal, would you support it? Yes, or no.

I, too, am always intrigued by evasiveness.

So when the author said the data suggest that women don't have late-term abortions for reason of fetal abnormality, she didn't understand her own study either? Yes, or no.

Yes, I believe the authors understood that the women they studied, women seeking 2nd trimester abortions, got abortions for pretty much the same reason as women seeking 1st trimester abortions.

 

[cpwill]

It's always comforting to belong to a like-thinking group, CP.

Indeed it is. Unfortunately, one of the (several) downsides of our organizing into like-thinking groups (along with poor decision making and extremism) is that we begin to tell ourselves (and believe) hyperbolic or derogatory stories about the non-in-group Other.

Nobody has the right tell you how you should manage your private life

Eh. We forbid (and should) actions we think abusive of others.

 

[Irredentist]

Indeed it is. Unfortunately, one of the (several) downsides of our organizing into like-thinking groups (along with poor decision making and extremism) is that we begin to tell ourselves (and believe) hyperbolic or derogatory stories about the non-in-group Other.



Eh. We forbid (and should) actions we think abusive of others.

How is abortion abusive to others? It's something that you do to yourself.

 

[weaver2]

Indeed it is. Unfortunately, one of the (several) downsides of our organizing into like-thinking groups (along with poor decision making and extremism) is that we begin to tell ourselves (and believe) hyperbolic or derogatory stories about the non-in-group Other. Eh. We forbid (and should) actions we think abusive of others.

I'm guessing you don't see the humor in your post.:mrgreen:

 

[cpwill]

If that is true then why do they resort to telling lies and misinforming people about abortion. That they might be stupid enough to believe the lies or simply just disingenuous enough not to care that they are lies puts your opinion on them to the question.

: confused: in no way is the internal consistency of the pro life argument belied by instances of dishonesty by some of its members

:shrug: however, pro lifers who lie do so for the same reason pro choicers do - because they are human. But thus far, here in this thread, I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that the pro choice crowd is capable of distinguishing between "this person is lying/misinforming" and "this person has reached a different conclusion than I have".

 

[cpwill]

I'm guessing you don't see the humor in your post.:mrgreen:

:shrug: I'm the one in this thread arguing that both those who agree with me and those who disagree with me should have an assumption that they are arguing in good faith - that they actually believe what they claim to believe - extended to them. So far in response I'm seeing a lot of "you should assume good faith for me but I don't have to for thee".

 

[cpwill]

How is abortion abusive to others? It's something that you do to yourself.

If one starts from the argument (as the pro life movement does) that an unborn child is a human child, then this is incorrect - it is something you do to your child.

That is why the question of whether or not an unborn child is, indeed, a human child, is sort of what the whole thing hinges on. If it isn't, then your description is correct. If it is, however, a human being, then what we are doing is infanticide.

 

[Atreus21]

I, too, am always intrigued by evasiveness.

Again, you didn't answer the question. For the third time, just yes or no: would you support a woman's legal decision to abort at 33-weeks?

 

[weaver2]

If one starts from the argument (as the pro life movement does) that an unborn child is a human child, then this is incorrect - it is something you do to your child. That is why the question of whether or not an unborn child is, indeed, a human child, is sort of what the whole thing hinges on. If it isn't, then your description is correct. If it is, however, a human being, then what we are doing is infanticide.

Infanticide is legally defined as killing of an already born child. Abortions are not killing an already born child. That's the law. You are free to develop your own morality contrary to the law, that a fetus is a person with Constitutional rights and that abortion is murder. You have a right to your moral values.

I have absolutely no quarrel with you and other conservatives calling abortion infanticide and punishing your women for getting abortions. The Constitution has guaranteed you the right to to make private decisions about your personal religious and reproductive life. But you and fellow conservatives are not focused on the women in your own group. Your focus is entirely on women outside your belief system and it's their behavior not your own women's behavior you are trying to control. Ironically there is no punishment for anti-abortion women that get abortions and they do get them, at exactly the same rate as other women. The punishment is focused entirely on pro-choice women. The entire anti-abortion movement was founded on and is focused on denying women the Constitutional right to make private decisions about their reproductive lives, by overturning Roe.

You can claim that the reason you are doing this is to save children's lives by stopping abortions but your focus is on Roe only (that was the litmus test for Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) and Roe says nothing about abortion. Roe says all people have a Constitutional right to make personal decisions about their private reproductive lives. That right is what the anti-abortion movement is trying to take away from women and only women.

When you have only one solution to a problem the solution is the goal not solving the problem. The way to test this is to ask any anti-abortion advocate if there is a way other than overturning Roe to reduce abortions.

 

[weaver2]

Again, you didn't answer the question. For the third time, just yes or no: would you support a woman's legal decision to abort at 33-weeks?

I'm not answering your question. I've already watched the game being played out. A yes answer gets this response from you; "Ah ha! I knew it! You really are an immoral baby killer". A no answer and your response is;"Ah ha! I knew it. You're just a liar".

What is really intriguing is why you think women and their doctors are lying about a 33 week abortion and are actually covering the fact that the women is a party slut that finds pregnancy stunts her style and wants out of motherhood and the doctor is just a money grubbing immoral piece of trash?

Half of the women getting abortions are the wives and girl friends of conservative men who presumable have their cooperation in getting an abortion and you don't call them party sluts or worse. And the doctors you say are immorally aborting 33 week fetuses and throwing them bit by bit into the trash are the same OBGYN docs that manage the pregnancies and deliver the babies of anti-abortion women.

So pro-choice women are sluts and anti-abortion women are pure?Even though they have both gotten abortions, and for the same reason.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm not answering your question. I've already watched the game being played out. A yes answer gets this response from you; "Ah ha! I knew it! You really are an immoral baby killer". A no answer and your response is;"Ah ha! I knew it. You're just a liar".

If you refuse to answer hypothetical questions, I think it's fair to say I've won the argument. I've made a move on the chess board and your response is to leave the table. But to your point:

If you say yes, then at least you're consistent. You said you believe a fetus isn't a human being until birth, therefore you must support abortion right up until birth. That's barbaric.

If you say no, then you're not consistent. Your actual beliefs differ from your stated belief of a human being not existing until birth. It doesn't make you a liar necessarily - it just means you hadn't thought it through. But at least you're not barbaric.

So, either admit that you're hypothetically okay with killing an obvious human being, or admit that you truly believe it's a human being at some point in the womb. I know you won't give me an honest answer, but your evasiveness is answer enough. It's clear to me that you don't really want to examine what abortion actually does, and that is typical of abortion proponents, and emblematic of abortion itself. It best operates out of sight and in the dark; unscrutinized and operative.

 

[Scrabaholic]

If you refuse to answer hypothetical questions, I think it's fair to say I've won the argument. I've made a move on the chess board and your response is to leave the table. But to your point:

If you say yes, then at least you're consistent. You said you believe a fetus isn't a human being until birth, therefore you must support abortion right up until birth. That's barbaric.

If you say no, then you're not consistent. Your actual beliefs differ from your stated belief of a human being not existing until birth. It doesn't make you a liar necessarily - it just means you hadn't thought it through. But at least you're not barbaric.

So, either admit that you're hypothetically okay with killing an obvious human being, or admit that you truly believe it's a human being at some point in the womb. I know you won't give me an honest answer, but your evasiveness is answer enough. It's clear to me that you don't really want to examine what abortion actually does, and that is typical of abortion proponents, and emblematic of abortion itself. It best operates out of sight and in the dark; unscrutinized and operative.

What a load of horse hockey.

One can be against abortion after a certain gestational stage and still believe the fetus is not a human being.

Myself, I am against govt banning it at any stage. It's for doctors to practice medicine, not the govt.

 

[weaver2]

If you refuse to answer hypothetical questions, I think it's fair to say I've won the argument. I've made a move on the chess board and your response is to leave the table. But to your point:

If you say yes, then at least you're consistent. You said you believe a fetus isn't a human being until birth, therefore you must support abortion right up until birth. That's barbaric.

If you say no, then you're not consistent. Your actual beliefs differ from your stated belief of a human being not existing until birth. It doesn't make you a liar necessarily - it just means you hadn't thought it through. But at least you're not barbaric.

So, either admit that you're hypothetically okay with killing an obvious human being, or admit that you truly believe it's a human being at some point in the womb. I know you won't give me an honest answer, but your evasiveness is answer enough. It's clear to me that you don't really want to examine what abortion actually does, and that is typical of abortion proponents, and emblematic of abortion itself. It best operates out of sight and in the dark; unscrutinized and operative.

I've "examined" reproductive rights for more years than you can possibly imagine. And I've learned not to play games, any games but especially yes or no games with people that live in those little blindingly pure moral worlds of "I'm right and your wrong"; worlds in which there is no such thing as ambiguity, nuance, extenuating circumstances, individual or unique situations, personal differences, indecision, fear, human nature, doubt or grey areas. You are just one more ignorant anti-abortion male telling women telling women how to manage their reproductive lives and their families to suit your conservative agenda.
I don't play games. I don't operate out of sight, I'm not evasive I just don't answer stupid questions, I can give reliable sources to everything I post, I understand how to read a study and understand %. Women have been reasonably polite to your type for years but it's getting harder and harder not to tell your kind to go **** yourself and leave the hard thinking to people that know how.

 

[Peter King]

number 4 ought to be illegal as it is killing

other options though, legal in my book

Option 4 is not killing and what you think is illegal is not something women should have to care about.