Bad arguments your side makes

[Scrabaholic]

You pretty much did. All you did was cover it up with a list of concerns that the woman will be left wondering about. If she cared for the child before it was born then why would she decide to kill it instead of allowing it to live? Taking the mental troubles that will plague you for the rest of your life is a far better solution over all than to end the kids life. Bad things might happen to them and they might suffer, but then they might grow up to be a healthy adult, get married, have kids, and just generally have a great life, and sure, you will never know for sure, but there is a chance, and it is that chance you have to bank on.

The vast majority of women who abort do not have "mental troubles" and of those who do, many (most?) of them had problems before they got pregnant.

Women who give a child up for adoption are at higher risk for emotional problems. Adoption Trauma: The Damage to Relinquishing Mothers | Origins Canada

 

[Henrin]

The vast majority of women who abort do not have "mental troubles" and of those who do, many (most?) of them had problems before they got pregnant.

I was talking about women that give up their child. I was also not saying it causes any sort of mental issues, but was going off what Minnie said on the issue.

 

[RamFel]

MAYBE IF YOU USED BETTER ENGLISH, YOU WOULD "GET" IT. An unborn human is provably very different from a "child". Thus if someone has a child, it is after birth. If someone loves a child, it is after birth. Abortion only applies pre-birth!!!

Wrong. You are pushing left-wing lies. The left (like you) are using such blatantly obvious lies to further their stupid policies.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I was talking about women that give up their child. I was also not saying it causes any sort of mental issues, but was going off what Minnie said on the issue.

I see you conveniently left out the part where I linked to studies about the emotional problems of women who gave their child up for adoption.

 

[Henrin]

I see you conveniently left out the part where I linked to studies about the emotional problems of women who gave their child up for adoption.

So? I was in no way arguing against it or for it.

 

[minnie616]

You pretty much did. All you did was cover it up with a list of concerns that the woman will be left wondering about. If she cared for the child before it was born then why would she decide to kill it instead of allowing it to live? Taking the mental troubles that will plague you for the rest of your life is a far better solution over all than to end the kids life. Bad things might happen to them and they might suffer, but then they might grow up to be a healthy adult, get married, have kids, and just generally have a great life, and sure, you will never know for sure, but there is a chance, and it is that chance you have to bank on.

I never mentioned mental problems.

I was talking about the many reasons women in the US do not give up a newborn for adoption.

Only 1 percent of US women give their newborns up for adoption.

 

[Henrin]

I never mentioned mental problems.

I was talking about the many reasons women in the US do not give up a newborn for adoption.

Only 1 percent of US women give their newborns up for adoption.

Now imagine after going through your pregnancy, turning around and giving your newborn to a stranger because they wanted to adopt ... just handing them over not knowing if you will see them again. Did the adoptive parents love the child or did they neglect or hurt or abuse the child? Are the adoptive parents still together or did they divorce? Does the child even know he/she is adopted?

Sounds like you're talking about something that will plague the woman for some time in the future. Will she ever really know if her child is safe, loved, still alive, happy, or not being abused?

 

[MadLib]

For a few reasons. One is that they almost universally rely on slut-shaming as you talk about here...



Two is that they usually support almost all of the same bans and limitations that anti-choicers do, apart from an honest out-right ban. They want to make it impossible to get medical abortions, which makes it harder for women to abort early, but then they also want to slash time limits in half, or sometimes even less.

Three is that a major part of the pro-choice movement is combating violence against women who are trying to make their choice, and these people usually perpetuate that violence, supporting shaming, attacking, and legal opposition to women in difficult positions.

Who exactly are we talking about here? "Pro-choice in name only" can run the gamut from people who support legalizing abortion at all stages but still think it's morally wrong, to people who support any degree of restriction on abortion at all. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me this is less a criticism of their argument than it is disliking them for not being ideologically pure enough, like some Trostkyist slamming Corbyn for being insufficiently left-wing.

Women wanting to talk about their own experiences with abortion is NOT about trying to make themselves a political poster-child,

Isn't it? They're using their own personal experience in order to normalize a highly controversial and politically charged action.

and they have no obligation to give a crap if anyone is "turned off" by them saying they're proud of their decision.

I mean, sure, but if their goal is to convince people who don't already 100% agree with them (and, in fairness, it might not be), then they might want to consider what kind of rhetoric they're using and how people who only have a vague understanding of the abortion debate might think of it.

I'm not assuming anything before, during, or after - it's a fact that abortion isn't a criminal act.

My comment above you reply has a very simple meaning:

Each individual needs to be true to his or herself and be a living example of one's values and beliefs - regardless of the origin of those values and beliefs (i.e, religion). But when excercising one's beliefs one shouldn't infringe on the rights of their fellow citizens to exercise their right to do the same.

Ergo, if a woman doesn't believe in abortion - nobody has the right to coerce her into having one if she doesn't believe abortion is right - regardless of her reason. It is a personal choice to continue a pregnancy till giving birth. Having that choice is important. But so is the choice not to remain pregnant should a woman decide it's not in her own best interests. Individual women need to respect the right of other women's choices.

If a man is against abortion then it stands to reason that he doesn't have a relationship with a woman who doesn't share his beliefs.

But the most important element to the premise is "Not infringing on rights of their fellow citizens." When it come to individuals reproductive roles and rights - that's exactly what our Constitution is about.

Abortion is a private matter to individual women and any medical provider they choose to consult with. That relationship isn't privy to the public. Nor is the medical procedure decided on between a medical provider and his or her patient. Government has the right to collect and publish non-personal information. I'm personally against that.

In the end - when I make the comment: "If you don't believe in having an abortion, don't have one."....means exercise your right to choose - but don't infringe on the rights of your fellow women to exercise their right to choose "differently"...even if you disagree.

Again, this is basically just a restatement of your position, not an actual argument for why abortion should remain legal. No one who believes abortion is equivalent to murder would ever be convinced by this.

 

[Removable Mind]

Who exactly are we talking about here? "Pro-choice in name only" can run the gamut from people who support legalizing abortion at all stages but still think it's morally wrong, to people who support any degree of restriction on abortion at all. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me this is less a criticism of their argument than it is disliking them for not being ideologically pure enough, like some Trostkyist slamming Corbyn for being insufficiently left-wing.


Isn't it? They're using their own personal experience in order to normalize a highly controversial and politically charged action.

I mean, sure, but if their goal is to convince people who don't already 100% agree with them (and, in fairness, it might not be), then they might want to consider what kind of rhetoric they're using and how people who only have a vague understanding of the abortion debate might think of it.


Again, this is basically just a restatement of your position, not an actual argument for why abortion should remain legal. No one who believes abortion is equivalent to murder would ever be convinced by this.

My reply is correct, clear, and concise as it relates to the topic.

I don't need to make an argument as why abortion needs to be legal. The lawmakers and judicial system has made clear as to why it's legal and I simply parroted some of those reasons along with how we are legally able to exercise our rights. But directly arguing "why abortion should be legal isn't actually related to the OT's premise.

My comment was an argument that was in rebuttal to a comment by the thread creator that might be commonly said by pro-choice, which in his "opinion" he finds to be a bad argument. I disagreed. I still disagree for the reasons I stated.

You are more than welcome to disagree with my points, but keep it in context to the OT.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Please note*

My quote



There is nothing in that quote regarding abortion .. I said " going through your pregnancy , turning around and giving your newborn to stranger..."

My quote goes back to earlier post in this thread where I stated the fact that only one percent of US women give up their newborn for adoption.

.

Noted...and apologies if I misread you.

 

[MAGAnificent]

STUPID LIES DESERVE NO RESPECT. The post I linked (#107) explains why the phrase "pro life" is a Stupid Lie, and is based on Stupid Prejudice.

"BLATHERING NONSENSE" was explained in #271. The claim that something is "moral" (or "immoral") is purely Arbitrary, and just because a bunch of folks say something is true ("if you go exploring you will fall off the edge of the world!"), that doesn't mean it is actually true.


IF YOU CAN'T SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS, why should anyone believe your claims?


YOU, TOO. If you can...

[Still too hostile to take seriously.

 

[Scrabaholic]

So? I was in no way arguing against it or for it.

Yes, you were. You were promoting adoption when Minnie said that very few women place for adoption:

If she cared for the child before it was born then why would she decide to kill it instead of allowing it to live?

 

[minnie616]

Sounds like you're talking about something that will plague the woman for some time in the future. Will she ever really know if her child is safe, loved, still alive, happy, or not being abused?

Which is why when given a choice only about 1 percent of US women give their newborn up for adoption.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Who exactly are we talking about here? "Pro-choice in name only" can run the gamut from people who support legalizing abortion at all stages but still think it's morally wrong, to people who support any degree of restriction on abortion at all. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me this is less a criticism of their argument than it is disliking them for not being ideologically pure enough, like some Trostkyist slamming Corbyn for being insufficiently left-wing.

Isn't it? They're using their own personal experience in order to normalize a highly controversial and politically charged action.

I mean, sure, but if their goal is to convince people who don't already 100% agree with them (and, in fairness, it might not be), thenbirth went they might want to consider what kind of rhetoric they're using and how people who only have a vague understanding of the abortion debate might think of it.

I just defined it for you in extremely specific terms. That is what I am discussing. Stop erecting a bunch of strawmen that have nothing to do with anything I said. I'm not going to allow you to waste my time by spending time on them.

No, women talking about their reproductive health and experiences is not inherently political, just like discussing their feelings about anything else isn't inherently political. I'm sorry, but it IS normal: 40% of women have had one. The fact that you can't imagine any purpose to women discussing their own lives apart from to be manipulated by others as political cannon fodder is your issue, not theirs. If you supposedly fancy yourself a feminist, I would suggest you look at why you're objectifying women this way.

 

[Henrin]

I just defined it for you in extremely specific terms. That is what I am discussing. Stop erecting a bunch of strawmen that have nothing to do with anything I said. I'm not going to allow you to waste my time by spending time on them.

No, women talking about their reproductive health and experiences is not inherently political, just like discussing their feelings about anything else isn't inherently political. I'm sorry, but it IS normal: 40% of women have had one. The fact that you can't imagine any purpose to women discussing their own lives apart from to be manipulated by others as political cannon fodder is your issue, not theirs. If you supposedly fancy yourself a feminist, I would suggest you look at why you're objectifying women this way.

Isn't it actually 33% of women will have one in their lifetime? That's still a stupid high percentage, but it is much lower than 40%.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Wrong.

AS USUAL, YOUR TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED CLAIM IS TOTALLY WORTHLESS. Why should anyone believe your mere say-so just because you said so? You might as well be trumpeting, "The Earth is flat! The Earth is flat!"

You are pushing left-wing lies.

AND YOU ARE STILL FAILING TO SPECIFY WHAT THING(S) YOU CLAIM IS EACH A LIE. Why should anyone believe your mere say-so just because you said so? You might as well be trumpeting, "The Earth is flat! The Earth is flat!"

The left (like you) are using such blatantly obvious lies to further their stupid policies.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOUR MERE SAY-SO JUST BECAUSE YOU SAID SO? You might as well be trumpeting, "The Earth is flat! The Earth is flat!"

When I say that an unborn human is **provably** very different from a "baby" or a "child", I can support that claim with Objectively Verifiable Evidence. Anyone who sufficiently examines an unborn human can detect the Fact that it has an attached placenta as a vital organ, for almost the entirety of time between conception and birth. Meanwhile, no ordinary baby or child has an attached placenta as a vital organ. No ordinary baby or child uses an attached placenta to assault a person at least 4 different ways, which IS what an unborn human does.

Abortion is, LEGITIMATELY, self-defense from assault, and that's all the reason any woman needs, if she chooses to seek an abortion. You probably cannot find a single well-known left-wing site on the whole Internet where that particular Logic is deduced from Objectively Verifiable Evidence, the way I've presented it here. Which makes **YOU** the liar telling a Stupid Lie (about left-wing policy).

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Isn't it actually 33% of women will have one in their lifetime? That's still a stupid high percentage, but it is much lower than 40%.

Doing a bit of Google-fu, it does appear I am slightly out of date. The most recent American stats from the last 2 years or so are around 35%, yes. Appears it's dropped notably since '11 or '12, when it was 40%.

 

[FutureIncoming]

[Still too hostile to take seriously.

FACTS ARE FACTS. And hostility doesn't change Facts by one whit. No matter what you might think or say about a poster, that ultimately **fails** to address the Facts associated with erroneous claims made in the Overall Abortion Debate by abortion opponents, which can allow anyone to conclude that many abortion opponents act like (per the first link, a document I wrote so I don't have to keep repeating the details here, where they can't fit in the limited posting space), "lying ignorant equivocating propagandizing prejudiced dishonest greedy hypocritical stupid short-sighted genocidal would-be-slavers", and deserve to have that pointed out as thoroughly as possible.

 

[Bucky]

FACTS ARE FACTS. And hostility doesn't change Facts by one whit. No matter what you might think or say about a poster, that ultimately **fails** to address the Facts associated with erroneous claims made in the Overall Abortion Debate by abortion opponents, which can allow anyone to conclude that many abortion opponents act like (per the first link, a document I wrote so I don't have to keep repeating the details here, where they can't fit in the limited posting space), "lying ignorant equivocating propagandizing prejudiced dishonest greedy hypocritical stupid short-sighted genocidal would-be-slavers", and deserve to have that pointed out as thoroughly as possible.

It is amazing how when you cite a source, you cite yourself....

One word: hubris.

 

[MadLib]

No, women talking about their reproductive health and experiences is not inherently political, just like discussing their feelings about anything else isn't inherently political.

Yes, but talking about a specific reproductive health issue that happens to be one of the most politically controversial issues in the country inherently is. It's fine if you disagree with me that expressing pride in getting an abortion is a bad argument, or even that it is an argument, but how is it not political? Do you think women would even be doing this in the absence of the abortion debate? Are LGBT+ pride parades or veterans' marches also apolitical?

Why is this the hill you've chosen to die on?

 

[minnie616]

Yes, but talking about a specific reproductive health issue that happens to be one of the most politically controversial issues in the country inherently is. It's fine if you disagree with me that expressing pride in getting an abortion is a bad argument, or even that it is an argument, but how is it not political? Do you think women would even be doing this in the absence of the abortion debate? Are LGBT+ pride parades or veterans' marches also apolitical?

Why is this the hill you've chosen to die on?

Politics should not be involved in reproductive health.

When it comes to matters of reproduce health, politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with the religious liberty of an individual.

 

[FutureIncoming]

It is amazing how when you cite a source, you cite yourself.... One word: hubris.

BETTER WORD: PRACTICALITY. You are neglecting the Fact that most of the things I wrote and posted at that site other are full of links to things I didn't write. With respect to here, as stated, I'm simply avoiding excess repetition, and I'm avoiding the problem of limited posting space per message. That's all.

ALSO, your feeble attempt to change the subject does not at all address the Facts regarding many abortion opponents and the numerous evils they espouse. Tsk, tsk!

 

[Henrin]

Politics should not be involved in reproductive health.

When it comes to matters of reproduce health, politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with the religious liberty of an individual.

Except abortion is not just about reproductive health. When you introduce human life into the equation people are going to want to protect it, and when they want to protect that life they're going to want the government to help them. You might think it is wrong of them to make it political, but human nature just doesn't work the way you want it too.

 

[Bucky]

BETTER WORD: PRACTICALITY. You are neglecting the Fact that most of the things I wrote and posted at that site other are full of links to things I didn't write. With respect to here, as stated, I'm simply avoiding excess repetition, and I'm avoiding the problem of limited posting space per message. That's all.

ALSO, your feeble attempt to change the subject does not at all address the Facts regarding many abortion opponents and the numerous evils they espouse. Tsk, tsk!

You are saying pro-life groups are "espousing evil."

Wait a minute. Pro-choice groups advocate the killing of fetus's in a mother womb.

Now, when you mean espousing evil, are you talking about yourself? Give me a break.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Yes, but talking about a specific reproductive health issue that happens to be one of the most politically controversial issues in the country inherently is. It's fine if you disagree with me that expressing pride in getting an abortion is a bad argument, or even that it is an argument, but how is it not political? Do you think women would even be doing this in the absence of the abortion debate? Are LGBT+ pride parades or veterans' marches also apolitical?

Why is this the hill you've chosen to die on?

No, it isn't. It is not a woman's fault that YOU are politicising her personal medical experience. She didn't get an abortion to be political. She got it because like 35% of American woman, she needed one at some point in her 30-year reproductive lifespan.

If you mean to ask if women would still abort, yes. Female primates have been aborting since before humans even existed. Even our nearest primate relatives know how to abort. It is the strategy we use to limit harmful reproduction. All species have this. For some of them, they miscarry at will, or leave their young if they must. For humans, we use contraception and abortion, and have for all of time.

If you mean to ask if they would still discuss it, also yes. Women discuss all the non-controversial aspects of their reproductive lives and the emotions that came with it, from periods to uterine fibroids. So why wouldn't they also discuss abortion? Humans have a need to process and share things that we experience.

A march is not the same thing as getting a medical procedure. The fact that you think women's lives basically exist in a fishbowl for your judgment speaks volumes.