is pro-life discrimination against women?

[FallingPianos]

pro-lifers say that a woman is obligated to let her fetus make use of her body.

but most would not say that someone has the right to force a man to donate blood even if it was to save the life of another.

is this discrimination against women?

my own opinion is that it isnt discrimination against women, but discrimination in favor of the fetus.

 

[steen]

pro-lifers say that a woman is obligated to let her fetus make use of her body.

but most would not say that someone has the right to force a man to donate blood even if it was to save the life of another.

is this discrimination against women?

my own opinion is that it isnt discrimination against women, but discrimination in favor of the fetus.

It is both. Placing a burden on pregnnat women that nobody else has is very much discrimination, making her a second-class citizen.

Interestingly, the people who are eager to place that burden and duty onto women are also very much opposed to themselves being possibly exposed to such a duty of safely giving their bodily resources against their will EVEN IF IT WOULD SAVE A LIFE. Such is the inherent hypocricy of the pro-life movement.

 

[zymurgy]

No. Neither gender can kill accept out of self-defense.

 

[Jerry]

No.
It's not pro life's fault that only women can become pregnant. If men ever can become pregnant then the 14th. will extend all such related legislation to men.

As it is, pro life defends both unborn boys and girls, minorities and majority racial groups, poor and wealthy, homosexual and heterosexual; whereas pro choice wishes to allow the woman the option to abort at her discression, like, say, "I don't want to have a black baby".

If anyone is enabling discrimination, it is pro choice, though I do not believe that the majority of pro choicers would do so.

 

[steen]

No.
It's not pro life's fault that only women can become pregnant. If men ever can become pregnant then the 14th. will extend all such related legislation to men.

However, pro-life IS discriminating against women. What you are saying is that if men could get pregnant, then pro-life would ALSO discriminate against men.

 

[FallingPianos]

No.
It's not pro life's fault that only women can become pregnant. If men ever can become pregnant then the 14th. will extend all such related legislation to men.

thats exactly how I see it.

As it is, pro life defends both unborn boys and girls, minorities and majority racial groups, poor and wealthy, homosexual and heterosexual; whereas pro choice wishes to allow the woman the option to abort at her discression, like, say, "I don't want to have a black baby".

I think the situation in countries like china and india are even more relevant. females are selectively aborted because people want to have boys.

 

[FallingPianos]

It is both. Placing a burden on pregnnat women that nobody else has is very much discrimination, making her a second-class citizen.

the fact that only women get pregnant has nothing to do with the pro-life movement. all I can really say to that is "blame god" (if you're religious) or "blame nature" (if you aren't).

 

[steen]

the fact that only women get pregnant has nothing to do with the pro-life movement.

But that the prolife movement insist on ONLY the woman being forced to give bodily resources against her will to save lives, THAT very much is the pro-lifers fault.

 

[FallingPianos]

However, pro-life IS discriminating against women. What you are saying is that if men could get pregnant, then pro-life would ALSO discriminate against men.

well, in order for it to be "discrimination" doesnt there have to be something in comparison? for example, discriminating against women vs men, or discriminating against blacks vs whites?

if men and women are being treated equally, its not discrimination. at the very least, its not discrimination based on sex.

I suppose you could call it "discrimination against pregnant people", who as it just happens to turn out, are always women.

 

[FallingPianos]

But that the prolife movement insist on ONLY the woman being forced to give bodily resources against her will to save lives, THAT very much is the pro-lifers fault.

not to save lives in general, only to save her fetus's life. I'd never say that pregnant woman should be forced to donate their blood (or whatever) to me, or to anyone else except her fetus.

if a man ever got pregnant i'd hold him to the same standards, but men just dont get pregnant. I can't control that fact.

 

[Synch]

However, pro-life IS discriminating against women. What you are saying is that if men could get pregnant, then pro-life would ALSO discriminate against men.

\Men and woman combined make up 100% of our population...

If both are able to get pregnant, there would be no discrimination..

 

[steen]

well, in order for it to be "discrimination" doesnt there have to be something in comparison? for example, discriminating against women vs men, or discriminating against blacks vs whites?

Discriminating agai nst pregnant women vs everybody else, incl. yourself, who you are NOT forcing to give bodily resources against your will.

if men and women are being treated equally, its not discrimination. at the very least, its not discrimination based on sex.

But still discrimination. When you insist on women having a duty that you excuse yourself from, then it is discrimination and hypocricy.

I suppose you could call it "discrimination against pregnant people", who as it just happens to turn out, are always women.

Yes, exactly. And that discrimination is wrong. THAT IS MY POINT HERE. Unless you insist that EVERYBODY must give bodily resources against their will to save lives, then it is discrimination. When you excuse yourself from the duty you want to force on the pregnant woman, then it is discrimination AND hypocricy.

 

[steen]

not to save lives in general, only to save her fetus's life. I'd never say that pregnant woman should be forced to donate their blood (or whatever) to me, or to anyone else except her fetus.

And that is one of the problems with your argument. The duty is ONLY on the woman and not anybody else, and it is ONLY for the fetus and not anybody else's life. It is biased, it is discriminatory, it is hypocrisy.

If pro-lifers argued for such duties across the board and for all human life, then it would be much more palatable; now it is merely bigotry and hypocrisy, now it is merely deliberate oppression of women.

if a man ever got pregnant i'd hold him to the same standards, but men just dont get pregnant. I can't control that fact.

But you are not holding anybody ELSE to that standard. YOU don't have to give your bodily resources to save "life." yet you want the pregnant woman to do so. It is VERY glaring from where I view it. It detracts seriously from the pro-life integrity, this idea of forcing others to do what they cowardly refuse to endure themselves. Very much a "do as I say, not as I do" lameness.

It underscores the impression of pro-life as hypocrites who use this subject merely to control and oppress women. I have NEVER seen anything that doesn't confirm this, esp. when pro-lifers start throwing out the "responsibility" hypocritical claptrap.

 

[steen]

\Men and woman combined make up 100% of our population...

If both are able to get pregnant, there would be no discrimination..

Of course there would be, until YOU start submitting to the same duty to give your bodily resources that you want to force on the pregnant person. Until then, the pro-life argument is hypocritical.

 

[FallingPianos]

Yes, exactly. And that discrimination is wrong. THAT IS MY POINT HERE.

I assert that the duty of healthy pregnant person (once the pregnancy has reached a certain length) is the following:

to care for her fetus/child either until it becomes an adult, or until she can find someone else to do it through an adoption.

I assert that the father has the same duties, though he cannot directly act on them until the child is born.

during the pregnancy this duty includes letting the fetus make use of her bodily resources.

these duties do not include: the duty to give up her bodily resources to anyone else, or the duty to care for anyone else's children.

if those duties amount to discimination, than I believe that sort of discimination is completely justified.

Unless you insist that EVERYBODY must give bodily resources against their will to save lives, then it is discrimination.

I insist that everyone has the duty to give up their bodily resources to their fetus, but not to save lives in general, but this is only directly applicable to women. the father has the duty to help support the mother during her pregnancy, but that is as much as men are capible of doing. if the father were capible of fully sharing that duty, he would be obligated to do so as well.

When you excuse yourself from the duty you want to force on the pregnant woman, then it is discrimination AND hypocricy.

I do not excuse myself or anyone from those duties.

 

[FallingPianos]

The duty is ONLY on the woman and not anybody else

see post #15

it is ONLY for the fetus and not anybody else's life. It is biased, it is discriminatory, it is hypocrisy.

Those specific duties yes. and yes, it is biased and discriminatory in favor of the fetus. I don't see anything hypocritical about it though.

 

[taxedout]

But you are not holding anybody ELSE to that standard. YOU don't have to give your bodily resources to save "life." yet you want the pregnant woman to do so.

It doesn't matter what she does with her bodily resources.
All that matters is what she does with the baby's bodily resources.
Carrying the baby to term is not "saving" life.
It is simply failing to extinguish it.

 

[Jerry]

However, pro-life IS discriminating against women. What you are saying is that if men could get pregnant, then pro-life would ALSO discriminate against men.

:rofl
If anyone could become pregnant then abortion law would be centered around everyone and there would be no group left to be singled out.

 

[FallingPianos]

BTW, species 8472 is awesome!

:2wave:

 

[Jerry]

But that the prolife movement insist on ONLY the woman being forced to give bodily resources against her will to save lives, THAT very much is the pro-lifers fault.

You're trying to change the subject by deliberately misrepresenting you're opponent's argument.

.....and you accuse others of deception.....and you accuse others of hypocrisy. Silly liberal :roll:

The pro life movement is about acknowledging the unborn's inherent, self evident humanity.

Stop strawmanning and stay on point.

 

[Jerry]

BTW, species 8472 is awesome!

:2wave:

I, as a recovering Voyager fan, was in shock when I saw what Species 8472 could do to the Borg.

That and people have told me I look like one

 

[FallingPianos]

I, as a recovering Voyager fan, was in shock when I saw what Species 8472 could do to the Borg.

That and people have told me I look like one

thats so hot...

 

[talloulou]

Prochoice currently discriminates against men because they basically have no reproductive rights and they do not have an opt out clause for when they don't wish to be a father. With prochoice a man can be FORCED into parenthood. A woman can not.

Prolife has no such discrimination. If birth control fails and it's too late for the morning after pill then both people are forced into PARENTHOOD. Neither gets to opt out. Neither gets to make a decision for the both of them.

I know some will say but the WOMEN carries the baby!!! Yes, but that discrimination comes from nature, not the law or any people. It just is what it is.
You can write laws so that blacks and whites are treated equally. You can not write laws that turn whites into blacks or vice versa. You can write laws that demand men and women have equal rights but you can not write laws that turn women into men. If a man and a women are treated equally under the law does that mean the law gave the woman a physical penis? No it does not. The fact that women carry the offspring in their womb is natures law...nature can not be regulated and there is no equal or fair in nature.

 

[talloulou]

Forcing someone to give blood or a kidney is not comparable with pregnancy. In the first situation someone presumable would come along and try to forcefully take your blood or your kidney. With pregnancy your own body creates the entity that will use your resources and the whole process occurs naturally. In your mind you may not want to be pregnant but noone forced your body to do anything. Your body chose to accept the fertilized egg and then set up, all on its own, the conditions where your bodily resources nourish it. There is no OUTSIDE party. It's just you, the fertilized egg your body accepted, and your bodies desire to nourish it.

 

[FallingPianos]

Prochoice currently discriminates against men because they basically have no reproductive rights and they do not have an opt out clause for when they don't wish to be a father. With prochoice a man can be FORCED into fatherhood. A woman can not.

have you seen the threads about mens rights during pregnancies? a lot of pro-choicers are saying that men should be able to opt out of child support payments, sinse women can get abortions.

one thing I would like to see, is law that requires that the father be given the choice to keep the child and the mother required to pay child support, before the mother can give a child up for adoption. such may already technically be in place, but i'd like to see a system that enforces it better, sinse the woman can lie about knowing the paternaty of the child. figuring out a good way to do this would be tricky though.