Most conservative males keep reposting nonsense they know is not true about abortion. (1 Viewer)

[RaleBulgarian]

For the law to be equal, men should have the same opportunity to decide if his child should be born or not.

Dumbest comment of the day winner.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Well, you know, women, like men, can vote. Let people vote for the government they want.

It is a Constitutional issue, not an R or D issue. Get it straight.

 

[AGENT J]

Human decency. Just like human decency tells us to not murder, or cheat with someone else's wife, regardless if either one are legal or not.

Human decency tells me not to violate the rights and freedom of women and treat them as lessers :shrug:

see how easy that is

 

[AGENT J]

Depends on the state, and indeed, RvW has largely been relegated down, which makes me wonder why so many people are against getting rid of it. Women wouldn't really be losing anything, and states would be free to make their own decisions with their electorate.

except thier rights lol
states cant violate personal rights, this has no business being s state issue hence why many state restrictions lose eventually and are thrown out..

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Then why don't 100% of people support current laws, because that''s really all that matters?
2.)Why such an inane argument?
3.) You already know the argument, you just fail to address it directly(again).
4.) We're human beings, and unlike animals, we hold human life as so important, or SHOULD hold human life so important, that we wouldn't abort a baby in the womb for no good reason. Being that we're humans, we should be better than that.
5.) Even then, that doesn't mean we just ban abortion, but rather we regulate it responsibly.
6.) Poland regulates abortion, the UK regulates abortion, yet, you don't call them "pro-life" countries.
7.) But god forbid that I think the US should adopt their position on it.
8.) I say it's irrational to be so emotionally invested and opposing my position.er we regulate it responsibly. Poland regulates abortion, the UK regulates abortion, yet, you don't call them "pro-life" countries. But god forbid that I think the US should adopt their position on it. I say it's irrational to be so emotionally invested and opposing my position.

1.) easy because support doesnt change what matters. People also want blacks and women and gays to not have rights and dont support them having them . . .their feelings don't matter to legality and rights
2.) i havent provided any argument to you . . you must have me confused with somebody else lol
3.) nope im askign you, i have no clue what you are talking about but you are free to continue your mistake and or lie and calim i haven't addressed it why i simply ask you AGAIN
4.) ok? everything you just posted is subjective and can be turned in on itself so that doesnt work.
5.) I think its already regulated well . . 24 weeks (the half way point and 50% viability is pretty good) Id be willing to go down to 20 weeks since 21 weeks is the earliest possible viability while still allowing all the excptions BUT that wouldnt change much since the supper vast majority of abortions happen before 21 weeks already and the ones that dont are for exceptions.
6.) wow now you are just melting down into strawman land .. . where did i say ANY of that. america regulates abortion already
7.) that would depend on exactly what you want down to mirror them
8.) i dont know what your actual positions is, hence why i asked you, but on a side note its good thing my opposition to banning or extremely limiting abortion has nothing to do with emotion, it has to do with womans rights and freedom :shrug:

so again what is your valid argument based on philosophy and do you have something that i actually said

Crickets

 

[Scrabaholic]

nitpick fallacy.

Prove it.

 

[Lursa]

To a point. A woman can only opt for an abortion if she first agreed to have sex.

Unless, of course, it's a rape, but only 1% of abortions are sought because of rape, so no point in muddling the discussion.

So why should the state tell the man to be there for the child? Why force a man to be somewhere he doesn't want to be, giving money to a woman and child he doesn't want to support?

Agreed, people should be held accountable for their actions. The woman agreed to create the child, we're just arguing about what time the state should act in the baby's best interest

So why can a woman abort a child if she doesn't want it, but if the man doesn't want it, he can't abort, or even just leave her? For the law to be equal, men should have the same opportunity to decide if his child should be born or not. If he doesn't want the child to be born, there is a specific, easy, safe surgery that can be done to keep it from happening.....or we can allow him to just leave, if the woman insists on keeping the baby for herself, despite his objections.

I thought i was pretty clear...it's a decision by the state in the best interests of the child and the taxpayer. The child didnt ask to be born and the taxpayers arent responsible for creating it either. Why should the child suffer with less or the taxpayers have to keep paying more?

There are 2 responsible parties that knowingly risked the pregnancy and are aware of the possible consequences. Can you explain why the man shouldnt be held accountable for his decision? The woman is. If there's a pregnancy, she cannot escape consequences.

There are only 4 scenarios for her and she cannot avoid the consequences:

1. have a child
2. miscarry
3. have an abortion
4. die during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or end up with permanent health damage from the 1st 3 too. Just because she has different choices (all determined by biology, not law) doesnt mean she doesnt have consequences. Are you just mad because men have no control over women's choices?

btw, the state cant act in the best interests of something it doesnt know exists. And which does not exist legally. Do you beileve that women shouid be denied our Constitutional rights to due process and medical privacy? (And yes, the issue totally revolves around the Const.)

 

[weaver2]

Basically what these people are saying is the life of an unborn entity is more important to them than the well being of women. Plain and simple. Most would admit it too, in private (you know, amongst the "boys.")

It isn't just the women's well being they claim is less important than the fetus. It the entire family, mother, father, kids, and even the grandparents that may help support the family with babysitting emergency funds shelter. Every thing is less important than the fetus.

That's just unrealistic, inhumane, and stupid. The life of a fetus is not more important than the entire rest of the family. Anybody that believes it is has some significant problems with reality, religion, philosophy, logic and just plain human decency.

And the fact is when their family is threatened with an unwanted pregnancy they get abortions; at the same rate as every other family does

 

[Geoist]

Why do conservative males, when talking about abortion, continue to post stuff that simply isn't true, quote known liars, perpetrate old wives nonsense about women and refuse to believe any of the legal, scientific facts or studies about women and abortion?

What is it about the topic of abortion to causes intelligent males to become mental and moral midgets?

To be fair, a lot of those conservative males also have distorted views on economics, the environment, biology, history, etc.

 

[Casper]

Why do conservative males, when talking about abortion, continue to post stuff that simply isn't true, quote known liars, perpetrate old wives nonsense about women and refuse to believe any of the legal, scientific facts or studies about women and abortion?

What is it about the topic of abortion to causes intelligent males to become mental and moral midgets?

There is No cure for Stupid, thought you should know .

 

[weaver2]

A woman can only (get pregnant) if she first agreed to have sex.

Why force a man to be .... giving money to a woman and child he doesn't want to support?

..... people should be held accountable for their actions. The woman agreed to create the child, .....

So why can a woman abort a child if she doesn't want it, but if the man doesn't want it,he can't abort it.

Good God man, what were you doing during 8th grade biology?

 

[Logician Man]

To a point. A woman can only opt for an abortion if she first agreed to have sex.

Unless, of course, it's a rape, but only 1% of abortions are sought because of rape, so no point in muddling the discussion.

So why should the state tell the man to be there for the child? Why force a man to be somewhere he doesn't want to be, giving money to a woman and child he doesn't want to support?

Agreed, people should be held accountable for their actions. The woman agreed to create the child, we're just arguing about what time the state should act in the baby's best interest

So why can a woman abort a child if she doesn't want it, but if the man doesn't want it, he can't abort, or even just leave her? For the law to be equal, men should have the same opportunity to decide if his child should be born or not. If he doesn't want the child to be born, there is a specific, easy, safe surgery that can be done to keep it from happening.....or we can allow him to just leave, if the woman insists on keeping the baby for herself, despite his objections.

It's all about the plumbing differences between males and females. Hence: Men have a rather difficult time aborting.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A few basic examples:

--PP is selling aborted fetal body parts

They are

--Most abortions are for convenience

also true

--abortion is irresponsible

it’s not merely irresponsible, it’s outright demonic.

--Innocent babies are torn apart screaming in the womb, in pain

that can be true depending upon the state of gestation

--Most abortions consist of dismemberment

straw man, one no one is making that claim, but two the method of abortion is 100% irrelevant

--Democrats want to legalize post-birth abortion :doh

Our own demonic US Senator openly supports that very thing and so does the Governor of Virginia, both prominent democrats

 

[Crusader13]

Someone should at least be born before their rights supersede those of a born person. No?


Ah, I get it. It's just a woman.

Stop pretending that abortion doesn't kill way more women than it helps. Also, stop pretending that you care about females. You don't. You only care about the ones old enough to vote for you lr twisted, power-bent party. The ones that can't? Dissolve them in a bucket of acid,. Nice.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The task is not where to find the examples but which ones to start with first.

Abortions cause breast cancer later amended to abortions have a connection to breast cancer. That one has been mostly dropped, since it's been proven untrue.

I’ve never seen this published as an anti baby murder argument, but regardless of its veracity it’s irrelevant.

Most women feel regret for the rest of their lives for getting an abortion

I’ve never seen this argument made as you posted it. Many women do in fact regret having abortions, whether or not that’s “most” is irrelevant. There’s serious incentive to lie in such surveys and many women do lie about things they’re ashamed about. If you poll most women in the sex industry they’ll deny drug use and sexual abuse as children for example.

Women who get abortions get them for convenience and the corollary to that: women are sluts

Every single abortion is for convenience of some sort, whether it is social or medical, it is done because it is the most convenient option. Whether or not a woman is a “slut” is not relevant to the immorality of the grave evil of abortion, and no serious pro-lifer makes that as an argument.

Women should just carry an unwanted unplanned pregnancy to term then give away the baby. Every male that posts that thinks it's a simple easy solution for women to do and avoids aborting a pregnancy. Only someone who has never been pregnant thinks that's the best solution.

Again, a straw man, no one argues it is easy to do “just” as you qualified it. Giving away your own child is highly immoral, but less so then abortion.

Women have no right to stop a life and the corollary to that one is that the fetuses life is more valuable than the women's life.

No one has the right to stop an innocent life, and no the argument is that the lives are equal.

The 1.3% of abortions performed late term are also just for the convenience of sluts that suddenly discover they don't want a baby.

again, no one uses the argument that a woman seeking an abortion is a “slut”. And also the Guttmacher institutes own research shows late term abortions are not pursued for medical reasons the majority of the time. A late term abortion is about as close to medically NEVER necessary as one can get and say it’s “NEVER” necessary.

Abortion is being for birth control instead of contraceptives.

It is being used for birth control. It’s used for nothing else.

Abstinence only education and father/daughter chastity rings will keep teens from getting pregnant.

Ummm, ok, maybe you have problems with certain cultural practices but that is irrelevant to abortion as a moral issue.

The Bible says abortion is wrong.

A fetus has the same legal standing as a living human being.

A fetus is a human being.

It is a human being. To say otherwise is anti-scientific

A 1st trimester fetus feels pain and screams when it knows it is being aborted. And we know that because Priests for Life made a video of a fetus screaming.

It is irrelevant to the morality of the issue, however there is much material indicating fetuses can feel unpleasant stimuli as early as 8 weeks and the only real counter argument pro-abortionists make is claiming that “any feelings they have aren’t pain as a developed human would know it” in other words, your rebuttal is you picking the best possible answer out of context.

Women are heartless and don't care about the life growing inside of them.

No one argues this, it’s a straw man.

Women are just a mess of hormones and need to be guided by (choose one)
1. Christian men
2. Christian Pastors
3. God
4. The government
5. their husbands, fathers, uncles, grandfathers

No one argues this as you wrote it, another straw man.

How many more do you want?

How ever many you feel like making up

 

[weaver2]

Stop pretending that abortion doesn't kill way more women than it helps. Also, stop pretending that you care about females. You don't. You only care about the ones old enough to vote for you lr twisted, power-bent party. The ones that can't? Dissolve them in a bucket of acid,. Nice.

Abortion kills more women than it helps??? Abortion kills 800,000 women a year and you want to dissolve them in a bucket of acid?


Where are you reading this nonsense? And then you indignantly dispute that conservative males post stuff they know is a lie.

 

[Northern Light]

I will explain it to you in more detail. Sixty years ago, a man would shoulder the responsibility and expense of a wife and family in exchange for authority and respect. Feminism has removed the "get" side of the equation for men. Refusing a "give something; get nothing" arrangement is the rational decision. Goodbye Jerry Falwell; hello Jimmy Buffett and Goodtime Charlie.

Talk about a non-sequitur. I never said anything about feminism in my previous post. I was talking about the death of evangelicalism, which is actually a political hybrid between southern Baptism and the Republican Southern Strategy in the 60's, which they used to salvage a base for their dying party.

Feminism is actually increasingly irrelevant. Most women want equality of the sexes, but less than 20% of women in the U.S. identify as feminist. So there is a clear difference in views about how to accomplish said equality.

What you're crying about is female autonomy. Fruitful marriages and partnerships didn't end just because the 1950's idea of the nuclear family got disproven as a really bad idea.

 

[ludin]

Prove it.

a baby is a human life in the context of the discussion that we are having.
so it will be up to you to prove that a baby is not a human life given the discussion that we are having.
hence it is a nitpick fallacy.

a nitpick fallacy is defined as:Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute.

 

[DarkWizard12]

It's all about the plumbing differences between males and females. Hence: Men have a rather difficult time aborting.

And THEREFORE......

 

[DarkWizard12]

I thought i was pretty clear...it's a decision by the state in the best interests of the child and the taxpayer. The child didnt ask to be born and the taxpayers arent responsible for creating it either. Why should the child suffer with less or the taxpayers have to keep paying more?

There are 2 responsible parties that knowingly risked the pregnancy and are aware of the possible consequences. Can you explain why the man shouldnt be held accountable for his decision? The woman is. If there's a pregnancy, she cannot escape consequences.

There are only 4 scenarios for her and she cannot avoid the consequences:

1. have a child
2. miscarry
3. have an abortion
4. die during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or end up with permanent health damage from the 1st 3 too. Just because she has different choices (all determined by biology, not law) doesnt mean she doesnt have consequences. Are you just mad because men have no control over women's choices?

btw, the state cant act in the best interests of something it doesnt know exists. And which does not exist legally. Do you beileve that women shouid be denied our Constitutional rights to due process and medical privacy? (And yes, the issue totally revolves around the Const.)

Hey, you're preaching to the choir here. I agree, 100%, there are consequences for EVERYONE's actions, men and women alike, and when men and women have sex, they should be held accountable for that decision. Which is why I believe a woman can't just get an abortion willy nilly. Pregnancy is the consequence of sex. If she is concerned about getting pregnant, the woman should consider well her decision to have sex. It's that simple.

The only thing I'm asking for is for it be equal. If a woman can abort her pregnancy to avoid the consequences of having sex, then a man should have the same opportunity to leave them and avoid the consequences of his decision to have sex with her. You understand now?

Abortion isn't about rights. It never was about rights. It's about women not wanting to be held accountable for their sexual choices.

 

[DarkWizard12]

except thier rights lol
states cant violate personal rights, this has no business being s state issue hence why many state restrictions lose eventually and are thrown out..

except when they do all the time? States(44 to be exact) regulate, or even outright ban, assisted suicide. Why is it a state can force you not to kill yourself, but the state can allow you to kill an unborn baby? Maybe you're one of those people who, philosophically, is against banning assisted suicide, and that's good for you and your personal position. However, that says nothing for your argument from legality here. States have laws on what people can do personally all the time, and abortion is no different, and such laws, when thrown out, are due to violating RvW, which is why i continue to argue for overturning it.

 

[COTO]

A few basic examples:

--PP is selling aborted fetal body parts
--Most abortions are for convenience
--abortion is irresponsible
--Innocent babies are torn apart screaming in the womb, in pain
--Most abortions consist of dismemberment
--Democrats want to legalize post-birth abortion :doh

1. No reputable legal or media source disputes that PP is harvesting aborted fetal body parts and selling them. The only controversy is whether they're selling them illegally for profit, or simply recouping their costs. Numerous undercover videos have surfaced over the years showing individual doctors and technicians haggling over prices, etc., in private, at trade shows, and even in public meetings. These videos and testimony based on them have appeared in courtrooms.

2. The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are easily preventable. Regardless, the majority of abortions for unwanted pregnancies aren't medically necessary. Perhaps "convenience" is too strong a word, but it's certainly fair to say most abortions are the sacrifice of a human life to rid a couple of a burden they brought upon themselves by willful and reckless behaviour.

3. Abortion is murder, morally if not legally. Murder can be neither responsible nor irresponsible. A couple putting themselves in a position where they face heavy life consequences unless they commit murder is both immoral and irresponsible.

4. Innocent babies are dismembered (i.e. torn apart) in the womb in some circumstances. Some dismemberments occur after the nervous system has developed, meaning the baby (or foetus, if you prefer) has the capacity to feel pain. The child in the womb can't scream, but I've never seen the "screaming" portion of this argument feature in a debate or anti-abortion literature. If you claim otherwise, perhaps provide a few examples.

5. Again, I've never seen this argument feature in either a debate or pro-life literature. I'm not sure how it's relevant. Murder is murder, whether by chemicals, suction, dismemberment, or any other means.

6. The conservative outrage I've seen most often voiced in this regard was the condemnation of 44 Senate Democrats who voted against 2019's S.130 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age." House Democrats similarly voted overwhelmingly against the bill.

Other abortionists and lobbyists have testified to congress that babies born alive during botched abortions have no inherent right to life.

Most women feel regret for the rest of their lives for getting an abortion

Women are heartless and don't care about the life growing inside of them.

In each case, it's got to be one of the two. Abortion claims a human life. The couple (woman, if it was a unilateral decision) who ended this life either regrets ending it after the fact or didn't/doesn't care about it.

As for what percentages fit into which categories, this article cites numerous studies (the gist is that 20-28% of women experience regret, trauma, or both).

 

[Obscurity]

1. No reputable legal or media source disputes that PP is harvesting aborted fetal body parts and selling them. The only controversy is whether they're selling them illegally for profit, or simply recouping their costs. Numerous undercover videos have surfaced over the years showing individual doctors and technicians haggling over prices, etc., in private, at trade shows, and even in public meetings. These videos and testimony based on them have appeared in courtrooms.

2. The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are easily preventable. Regardless, the majority of abortions for unwanted pregnancies aren't medically necessary. Perhaps "convenience" is too strong a word, but it's certainly fair to say most abortions are the sacrifice of a human life to rid a couple of a burden they brought upon themselves by willful and reckless behaviour.

3. Abortion is murder, morally if not legally. Murder can be neither responsible nor irresponsible. A couple putting themselves in a position where they face heavy life consequences unless they commit murder is both immoral and irresponsible.

4. Innocent babies are dismembered (i.e. torn apart) in the womb in some circumstances. Some dismemberments occur after the nervous system has developed, meaning the baby (or foetus, if you prefer) has the capacity to feel pain. The child in the womb can't scream, but I've never seen the "screaming" portion of this argument feature in a debate or anti-abortion literature. If you claim otherwise, perhaps provide a few examples.

5. Again, I've never seen this argument feature in either a debate or pro-life literature. I'm not sure how it's relevant. Murder is murder, whether by chemicals, suction, dismemberment, or any other means.

6. The conservative outrage I've seen most often voiced in this regard was the condemnation of 44 Senate Democrats who voted against 2019's S.130 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age." House Democrats similarly voted overwhelmingly against the bill.

Other abortionists and lobbyists have testified to congress that babies born alive during botched abortions have no inherent right to life.


In each case, it's got to be one of the two. Abortion claims a human life. The couple (woman, if it was a unilateral decision) who ended this life either regrets ending it after the fact or didn't/doesn't care about it.

As for what percentages fit into which categories, this article cites numerous studies (the gist is that 20-28% of women experience regret, trauma, or both).

Batch of insane and lunatic rantings about abortion. Do you ever even bother to try and think critically?

No one says abortion regret isn't real. No one says that at all. Anyone going through sucha traumatic life experience based on choice WILL have regret.

I personally do not give one flying **** how outraged any conservative is about abortion. Bodily autonomy MUST be protected at -all costs- from the radical right wing authoritarian agenda, and I myself will march in arms against a government who destroys this fundamental right.

 

[Lursa]

They are
also true
it’s not merely irresponsible, it’s outright demonic.
that can be true depending upon the state of gestation
straw man, one no one is making that claim, but two the method of abortion is 100% irrelevant

Our own demonic US Senator openly supports that very thing and so does the Governor of Virginia, both prominent democrats

And you're wrong on all counts. One would at least think you'd do a little due diligence with some non-religious or pro-life sources and find out before embarrassingly proving the OP's point.

 

[Lursa]

Hey, you're preaching to the choir here. I agree, 100%, there are consequences for EVERYONE's actions, men and women alike, and when men and women have sex, they should be held accountable for that decision. Which is why I believe a woman can't just get an abortion willy nilly. Pregnancy is the consequence of sex. If she is concerned about getting pregnant, the woman should consider well her decision to have sex. It's that simple.

The only thing I'm asking for is for it be equal. If a woman can abort her pregnancy to avoid the consequences of having sex, then a man should have the same opportunity to leave them and avoid the consequences of his decision to have sex with her. You understand now?

Abortion isn't about rights. It never was about rights. It's about women not wanting to be held accountable for their sexual choices.

So are all the other consequences...and she has to pay them. Sorry if you dont like her choice of consequences but it's not your body, your life, or your future. Perhaps she already needs to be accountable for other children and dependents? To a job to support her family? It's more than responsible to make a choice where you DO NOT have to take public assistance...it's decision that makes her accountable to the taxpayers.

And the man has the exact same ability AND time to avoid consequences...deciding before having sex. That applies to both. If she decides to have sex and she gets pregnant, as I wrote, she cannot escape consequences. Of the 4 consequences I listed for women...men can avoid consequences in all but one of those scenarios (if she has the kid...which is what you are all about making her do :roll.

So...tell me again how it's not fair?

And if there is a child, *both* are held accountable by the courts.