- Joined
- Mar 26, 2018
- Messages
- 2,545
- Reaction score
- 560
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Wrong thread
No its a comparison.
Wrong thread
You have not presented a compromise. Instead you displayed arrogance and condescension by not even bothering to understand the pro choice side.
No, you need to face up to the fact that your position is not an attempt at compromise. It is instead a self made contradiction on your part. It is your claim that it is unreasonable to end a human life yet you have no problem with that in the case of rape. Is it that the child of a rape is not human? Is their life of no value and therefore easily discarded? How do you go from ending a human life is bad to ending a child conceived of rape is good? Why is it that when a woman decides she wants an abortion that is bad but when you decide an abortion is appropriate then that is good?
Yours is not a compromise yours is making a special plea for an instance that does not need one.
I find it laughable that i would even consider what a conservative wants in this case. It is not about what conservatives want. It is about the fact that it is a woman's right to make a choice not the conservative.
It needs to be pointed out that it is you who are using rape as an emotional plea to obtain what you laughably refer to as a compromise which in fact is nothing more than an arrogant demand that only conservatives have the right to decide what is best for a woman. The pro choice side does not distinguish the reasons for an abortion but instead maintains that that is a discussion between the woman and her doctor.
You are the one who foolishly said that it is about conservatives " allowing" , which tells us that the need for power and the desire to control women is your agenda.
You're twisting everything I said around. Nice try though.
I never said abortions from rape were good...just that I and many other pro-lifers would be more than happy to support it if it meant we would get something in return from the pro-choicers. That is, by definition, a compromise. One which you openly admit you would never make, which proves you really don't give a crap about rape victims. Stop pretending to have some moral high ground.
Yes, aborted babies from rape are still human lives, and it's a terrible thing to end them. But if it means saving millions of other human lives in the process it would be justified.
Rape is not a bargaining chip for those like you who only care about their own ideology
Coming from the side that has consistently argued (and indeed the very foundation of this thread) that abortion should be allowed "because rape victims!".
You're a joke.
Which is of course not true. Just another example of the pro life failure to put up any good evidence based reasons for their opinions, or in your case, demands. And so instead try the trick of making up false claims about what pro choice say.
As i have repeatedly said, the reason as to why a woman has an abortion is something between herself and her doctor. Not a bargaining chip for the pro life to use because in their arrogance they think they have something to bargain with. I do not need to bargain with someone who has no clue about the side he is dealing with if he thinks that pro choice needs rape to justify its position. Nor do i need to bargain with someone who only brings the arrogance of saying the conservatives will " allow".
Abortion is not there For you to allow. You need to show good reason to support your demands not arrogance.
The only reason the pro choice side need consider rape is to point out that people like you who claim to want to save lives is also willing to spend those lives as mere collateral if they can get their way. That as always you present us with nothing but a contradiction
Rape is not something that supports the pro choice side. It is something that makes the pro life side look as ridiculous as they are.
Your true colours shine brighter with every post.
You're clearly not interested in any sort of discussion or compromise on the matter of abortion. It's simply your way or nothing, and anything else simply doesn't count because "muh abortion!". Why are you even on a discussion forum?
You don't even know your own side. Rape is consistently the first bargaining chip pro-choice people use when trying to win support. And I repeat - it is the very foundation of this thread.
If abortion is not ours to allow, what makes you think it's yours to do so? That's the funniest part of your entire premise. You're accusing one side of doing the exact same thing as you. Lets just get this straight - Republicans allowing abortion= omg bigots it's not yours to allow. Dems allowing abortion = beautiful progressives. Mkay.
If you think that rape is a basis for the pro choice side then you need to demonstrate that is true with more than just because the OP says so.
I have given good reason as to why rape is not an issue for the pro choice side. It is you who need it as a life worth throwing away while claiming life is precious.
The only reason to bring up rape is when the pro life do so by creating their own contradiction of life is worth saving unless the pro life
The pro choice argument is that it is a woman's right to make that decision not a bunch of clownish conservatives or governments or religions. You have nothing to offer at the bargaining table because abortion is not there for either you or me to allow. It is there for a woman to make a decision about.
No, i actually do not because that is what you have said is so.And if you think that rape is a basis for the pro-life side to bargain with, you need to demonstrate that with more than just because I said so.
Also - safe, legal, and rare was the pro-choice movement's initial mantra. That was quite clearly a hint at having the procedure done in only extreme cases where it could be seen as justifiable, ie rape.
Calling it murder is not reason it is trying for an emotional plea. Quite disgraceful for someone like you to call it murder while being willing to barter the life of a conception of rape to get your way. It would be murder by convenience for you then. I did not say that the pro life needed to make a contradictory statement of life needs to be saved while at the same time willing to throw it away. I said it did make that contradiction.Wrong. The pro-life stance can stand on its own without this hypothetical compromise on rape victims. Murder is still wrong and rape or incest don't change that.
Yet you are the one using it as a bargaining chip.Uh no sorry...it's the pro-choice side that brings up rape more often. I've never the word 'rape' come from anyone trying to argue for the protection of human lives. It is only those that want to end them that use the word to try and win sympathy or credibility.
This is probably where you hit an all time low tbh. If women want to be a part of society, that means they're bound by social standards, one of those being that their choices will be questioned and even prohibited in justifiable cases. That's how society functions. I don't get to say that driving without a license is my personal choice and not something you clownish liberals can prohibit on with your laws and regulations.
You did not put up a debate you made the mistake of thinking the pro choice side should give up 99% of reasons for abortion and then conservatives would allow rape conception to be aborted.Abortion, like everything else, is fair game for criticism or debate. Deal with it.
Yes you see that same thing with people who want more gun control. They want the gun lobby to compromise but even if they do they will just want more. So just like people who want more gun control, when it comes to people who want pro-choice give them an inch they'll take a mile. So just like the gun lobby the pro lifers shouldn't compromise.Even if pro-lifers did make a compromise to support abortion in these extremely rare cases, it wouldn't change anything. Pro-choicers wouldn't be any happier and they'd certainly continue pushing a wider agenda to have abortion legalized completely and unreservedly. If you really were concerned about medical emergencies or rape pregnancies, we could all easily come together and set a reasonable compromise. But most supporters of abortion won't do that because they want much, much more.
Yup just like the gun control crowd, which is often one and the same with the pro choice crowd.But the problem is that the pro lifer is not asking for a reasonable compromise. Instead they are demanding that their compromises be seen as being reasonable when they are not.
There are also pro-lifers like me who hold to their own beliefs but stay out of the secular law fight altogether...
What do you mean? You don't want laws changed?
Yup just like the gun control crowd, which is often one and the same with the pro choice crowd.
But the problem is that the pro lifer is not asking for a reasonable compromise. Instead they are demanding that their compromises be seen as being reasonable when they are not.
Nor do i need to use sick mothers or rape as a justification. At best they would be used to point out just how ludicrous is the contradictory nature of the pro lifers argument.
Abortion should be legal as it is a medical issue and not a legal issue.
Who says "that the pro lifer is not asking for a reasonable compromise"? That is unadulterated nonsense. It is the pro-choicer that demand all abortions, even those for birth control on demand, be supported. THAT is the uncompromising position.
I did not say that pro life is not asking for a compromise, i pointed out that the so called compromise being asked for is nothing more than an idiotic remark.
The position of the pro choice is that it is a woman's choice not some lobby group like conservatives , the religious or government. There really is nothing you can offer to create a compromise on that position. Except, of course that you demand the right to make choices for women. Which is not a compromise. It is just another idiotic remark.
So tell me about the hotty slut that gets herself knocked-up (ALL BY HERSELF?) and then demands an abortion because it's "not convenient". Why should she have the right to make the decision to terminate the fetus/baby/embyro? It may be her body, but it is someone else'e life she's ending. She made the decision, she should live with it.
Says someone who CONVENIENTLY will never, ever be pregnant....
It's HER body that is being put through HELL to gestate and give birth. THAT gives her the right to choose to abort or gestate. HOW she got pregnant - consensual sex or rape - is irrelevant. We do not tell the lung cancer patient that s/he cannot have the tumour removed because s/he made the decision to smoke. Same principle.
I did not say that pro life is not asking for a compromise, i pointed out that the so called compromise being asked for is nothing more than an idiotic remark.
The position of the pro choice is that it is a woman's choice not some lobby group like conservatives , the religious or government. There really is nothing you can offer to create a compromise on that position. Except, of course that you demand the right to make choices for women. .
Says someone who CONVENIENTLY will never, ever be pregnant....
We do not tell the lung cancer patient that s/he cannot have the tumour removed because s/he made the decision to smoke. Same principle.
So tell me about the hotty slut that gets herself knocked-up (ALL BY HERSELF?) and then demands an abortion because it's "not convenient". Why should she have the right to make the decision to terminate the fetus/baby/embyro? It may be her body, but it is someone else'e life she's ending. She made the decision, she should live with it.
Here's the thing; in a free society, nobody has unrestricted freedom. If you want to live in this country you're required to live up to the moral code of this country, and right now that moral code is asking you why you think a life can be ended out of pure convenience to you. "Because I want to and that's that" isn't an argument, it's a cop-out. You better get used to people continually asking the question and attempting to abolish abortion unless you can provide a better answer than "you can't tell me what to do". Sorry - but we can. We tell everyone what to do. We tell criminals they have to go to jail. We tell minors they have to be 18 before they can make certain choices. We tell parents they can't abuse their kids. Yes, we're gonna tell mothers they can't just kill their offspring too. That's how a free society works.
This is a question for people who are pro life, people who want abortion all together banned. What about cases of maternal life, where the mom is suffering from complications from the pregnancy and could die if she doesn't get an abortion? Some countries such as Venezuela, Paraguay, Madagascar, and certain African countries ban abortion but make exceptions of the mom's life is in danger, and then there's countries such as Nicaragua which ban abortion all together even if the mom's life is in danger. So in Nicaragua even if the mom could die if she keeps the baby, she cannot legally get an abortion. Usually if the mom dies the baby dies too. So do you agree with countries such as Nicaragua?
It's clearly NOT irrelevant. There are (at least) THREE people involved: one round heel, one careless dumbass and one baby, ALL of which should have rights in the matter. And your 'principle' is nothing like the lung cancer patient. The embryo will not kill the carrier (except in unusual cases that would actually call for an abortion), the tumor most likely (unless significant medical procedures are used) will. Furthermore, I suspect that if the cancer would not kill the patient, she would keep it, and keep smoking. She cares more about the cancer than she does the baby. That should give you pause, but I'm confident that it won't bother someone as narcissistic as the woman in question seems to be.