• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pro-life or anti-choice?

TypicalRussian said:
what I am saying is true and has been backed by science
Click to expand...

No you are not, by making out women to be sluts who take advantage of good men, who they lead to their doom, well that is neither scientific nor is it backed by science.
 
cpwill said:
: 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".
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Most of their arguments are based on a dishonest interpretation of facts.

And no, Pro choicers have no need to lie to support their side of the argument. the same by experience, can not be said for the pro life group.

And yet i have not seen you do anything other than excuse their behaviour rather than demonstrate pro choicers have misinterpreted it.
 
cpwill said:
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).
Click to expand...

A simple "no" would have been clearer.

cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, of course not. :roll: That's why prolifers, mostly prolife guys, keep saying that unwanted pregnancy is mostly women's fault for "opening their legs," and equally vile comments like it. Not to mention how often many of them say that women who never want children should be punished with lifetime celibacy. Or that women who choose to have sex should be forced to stay pregnant and give birth against their will "as consequences for their actions."
 
Scrabaholic said:
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.
Click to expand...

If so, I can't imagine their rationale. No one cares if a clump of cells is excised, like a tumor. If the target of abortion isn't a human being, then it has no rights. The entire debate is resolved. We can kill it as early or as late as we want without issue.

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

To your mind, did Kermit Gosnell do any wrong when he cut the neck of a 32-week old baby after it survived the abortion attempt?
 
weaver2 said:
Infanticide is legally defined as killing of an already born child
Click to expand...

Retreating to the law? Yes, the law currently does not agree with our position. That is what we are trying to change :).

However, pointing out that one side currently has their preference enshrined in legal power doesn't change (or, really, even address) the basic point that if one starts from the argument (as the pro life movement does) that an unborn child is a human child, then this your claim 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.


I have absolutely no quarrel with you and other conservatives calling abortion infanticide and punishing your women for getting abortions.
Click to expand...

:raises eyebrow: we don't punish women for getting abortions (nor is there a legal structure to even do so). We provide thousands of pregnancy centers to help young women in tough situations (my wife, for example, leaned heavily on one when, as a 20 year old, she became pregnant before we were married), and we provide grief counseling afterwards if they choose to kill the child.


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.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... no. This is... bizarre.

Recommended reading for you on how we tend to view each other's opinion of us.

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.
Click to expand...

Nope. The pro-life movement is based around ending abortion as a means of birth control. There is some internal division on where, precisely, those borders should be drawn, but that is the unifying underlying principle.

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
Click to expand...

:shrug: that is also false.
 
OceanBlues1 said:
A simple "no" would have been clearer.
Click to expand...

No, it would have been vaguer. I wanted to point out, specifically, that, once again, you were projecting opposition to your motives (take care of the young women involved) onto those who disagree with your means (kill the kid).

cpwill said:
We don't see babies as punishment,
Click to expand...
No, of course not.
Click to expand...

That is correct. The only people I've ever heard suggest that babies are a punishment are pro-choicers. Pro-lifers reject this formulation.

That's why prolifers, mostly prolife guys, keep saying that unwanted pregnancy is mostly women's fault
Click to expand...

I have never heard any pro lifer - male or otherwise - suggest that the majority of the fault lies with the woman, excepting, presumably, that they would say so in a case where a woman raped a man (or took deceptive steps to make sure that birth control did not work) and became pregnant as a result; conditions which would apply equally to any man who took similar actions. I think instead you are projecting the worst possible motives onto those who believe that personal responsibility for our actions (both male and female) exist, and that killing children because it allows us to escape that responsibility (or the consequences that flow from it) is wrong.
 
soylentgreen said:
Of course it is. Most of their arguments are based on a dishonest interpretation of facts.
Click to expand...

No. Their arguments are based assessments that you don't agree with, which is different than dishonesty :) You aren't a liar because you deny the humanity or individual nature of the unborn child. You are simply wrong :).
 
cpwill said:
No. Their arguments are based assessments that you don't agree with, which is different than dishonesty :) You aren't a liar because you deny the humanity or individual nature of the unborn child. You are simply wrong :).
Click to expand...

Your belief that the anti-abortion movement is internally consistent and members don't lie they just have different opinions doesn't hold up under examination.

The official position of the pro-life movement is that abortion is wrong at any stage of pregnancy and women who get abortions are either mistaken, immoral, sluts, killers, or murderers. But anti-abortion women when faced with an unwanted pregnancy that will damage their family or themselves get abortions at exactly the same rate as pro-life women. What's really interesting about this inconsistency is that the pro-life movement will absolutely not acknowledge this is happening, they have no intent or plan to punish these women as they say pro-choice women should be punished. This is not internal consistency and it is essentially living with a lie.

The official pro-life position that every fetus deserves a life isn't supported once the fetus is born and facing life. Pro-life members almost 100% of the time deny, with their vote programs essential to the lives of those children they insisted deserved a life. Another internal inconsistency.

Nor is it internally consistent to state that your goal is reducing abortions and then fight every program that provides easy access to cheap women's contraceptives or fighting to ban some very effective contraceptives by labeling them abortifacients when responsible research has clearly stated they are not abortifacients. I suppose one could call it internal consistency when a movement agrees to lie about something as pro-life has about abortifacients and everybody buys into the same lie. That's dishonest but it is consistent.

Pro-life leaders used to say that women's health and welfare were at the center of the anti-abortion movement until it became overwhelmingly obvious that the name calling, lies about permanent depression, breast cancer, guilt, denial of essential therapeutic abortions, were anything but supportive of women.

As the movement ages it becomes more and more apparent that the real agenda is to deny women the right to make private decisions about their personal life not giving every fetus a right to life.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
No. Their arguments are based assessments that you don't agree with, which is different than dishonesty :) You aren't a liar because you deny the humanity or individual nature of the unborn child. You are simply wrong :).
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It has been pointed out many times that pro lifers will use misinformation to get their point across. That is quite different from simply believing a pro lifer believes in what they think. This is not pointing out a difference in belief. This is pointing out that the means used to sustain that belief is dishonest.
 
soylentgreen said:
Incorrect. It has been pointed out many times that pro lifers will use misinformation to get their point across. That is quite different from simply believing a pro lifer believes in what they think. This is not pointing out a difference in belief. This is pointing out that the means used to sustain that belief is dishonest.
Click to expand...

The simple fact that pro-choice women are called killers and pro-life women getting abortions are called pro-life is all you need to know about pro-life's honesty and internal integrity.
 
weaver2 said:
The simple fact that pro-choice women are called killers and pro-life women getting abortions are called pro-life is all you need to know about pro-life's honesty and internal integrity.
Click to expand...

How many times we see them deliberately use the lie of name calling pro abortion which is just one example among many. Lying and the demonising of women are not just opinions that pro choice people disagree with. They are tactics used by the pro lifers to get their views across.
 
soylentgreen said:
How many times we see them deliberately use the lie of name calling pro abortion which is just one example among many. Lying and the demonising of women are not just opinions that pro choice people disagree with. They are tactics used by the pro lifers to get their views across.
Click to expand...

All extreme ideologies are dishonest; none can be explained using logic or common sense and have to be sustained by disingenuous philosophies. Making abortion legal and letting women decide what makes sense for their lives, the lives around them and the life of the potential child is just common sense. Banning legal abortion creates many social problems and hundreds of unintended consequences.

There is only one way to defend banning legal abortions and that is "my religious beliefs consider abortion to be murder of a human". Stated as a personal religious or sect belief makes the position not only acceptable but protected by the Constitution. Every religion is free to make up its own beliefs and enforce them. Nobody can tell them they are wrong or stop them from believing as they wish. But along with this right and Constitutional support goes the prohibition that they cannot make the government force their religious beliefs on any others by making laws that enshrine their beliefs. Which is exactly what conservative Christians and the religious right are doing by electing and appointing people that will ignore the Constitution and force the rest of the country to honor and follow the dogma of a religion written into law. That's the definition of a theocracy.
 
weaver2 said:
All extreme ideologies are dishonest; none can be explained using logic or common sense and have to be sustained by disingenuous philosophies. Making abortion legal and letting women decide what makes sense for their lives, the lives around them and the life of the potential child is just common sense. Banning legal abortion creates many social problems and hundreds of unintended consequences.

There is only one way to defend banning legal abortions and that is "my religious beliefs consider abortion to be murder of a human". Stated as a personal religious or sect belief makes the position not only acceptable but protected by the Constitution. Every religion is free to make up its own beliefs and enforce them. Nobody can tell them they are wrong or stop them from believing as they wish. But along with this right and Constitutional support goes the prohibition that they cannot make the government force their religious beliefs on any others by making laws that enshrine their beliefs. Which is exactly what conservative Christians and the religious right are doing by electing and appointing people that will ignore the Constitution and force the rest of the country to honor and follow the dogma of a religion written into law. That's the definition of a theocracy.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And even those who claim that their pro life stance is not religious based still use the same arguments as the religious do.
 
Peter King said:
Except you claimed:



And nothing in this "proof of yours" supports that, in fact it says the opposite. Try and read your "proof" before posting it. As it says the "physical male large men" attraction is fantasy.
Click to expand...

it was proof
 
TypicalRussian said:
no it is a human being
Click to expand...

Except it is not, I am a human being, we have working high brain functions and when those are gone we are brain dead. A group of cells with no lungs, no working brain and no ability to exist even with medical help is not a human being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom