[W:#672]Pro-Choice and Pro-life?

[Scrabaholic]

oh yes it does - consenting to sex absolutely equals consenting to the possibly of pregnancy

But it is not agreement to take a pregnancy to term and give birth.

 

[Scrabaholic]

you want me to cite population and number of guns? please

Obviously, you have lost track of the conversation. I wanted proof of what you claimed in post 302, your first sentence..

true - and force them men to give $$$ vs giving them choice - right ?

I never said that.

I disagree, women in the USA have many advantages over women in many other countries BECAUSE we value them. Many states value unborn's too. It doesn't have to be one or the other you know

What advantages?

 

[AGENT J]

Actually, he's right on the financial impact.

except in the cases he is not
like i said its subjective so by definition that makes it not a fact and makes his claim wrong when he says "every single one"
adoption, income status/wealth etc etc and there's also surrogates etc that would feel there isn't a financial impact etc

if you disagree you are free to prove his claim to be a fact but there's nothing out that that can do that

 

[choiceone]

Your argument assumes there is no other body within her body. That's always the standby rationale that only one body and person is being affected. You read the OP I'm in favor of pro-life groups taking banning abortion off the table. I believe that will get us closer to safe, rare and legal abortion.

You seem to assume that there is a separate individual body in there. If it's an embryo or pre-viable fetus, or a non-viable fetus, it can't be separated from her body, individualized, and continue living. It's dishonest to say otherwise. And none of them are persons. Persons are, by definition, born.

 

[choiceone]

I think it a pregnant female says she was raped/incest to conceive yes, someone should be charged for that crime don't you?

I think that further traumatizing a rape victim by forcing her to say or write that she was raped in order for her to be relieved of further negative consequences of being a crime victim is outrageous. Why is it that people refuse to understand that the victim has to be alleviated of such consequences? Just because the guy is no longer actively raping her doesn't mean she isn't still being raped if she's pregnant by it.

 

[choiceone]

the majority doesn't rule - the Constitution rules and the Supreme Court is the deciders of what is and isn't Constitutional. It has nothing to do with majority/minority of people's opinions on any given day

I agree. But the point is that 7 of 9 SC justices had said the 14th amendment applied to women, the vast majority of people agreed, and only 5 of 9 SC justices said it didn't apply and they were all conservative Catholics with a vested interest in imposing Catholic restrictions on others. What if the SC said we hadn't had a right to the amendment so women could vote - would you like it?

different polls got different results but bottom line, states decide, states can vote etc on how they want to handle protecting unborn life

The states shouldn't be violating the rights of women like this, because the SC didn't even protect a woman's right to life or right to get health care as part of liberty even if she were going to be crippled for life.

ok I actually agree with you - how then do we stop those people from having children (isn't that what you're suggesting? ???)

Choice means people can choose to have kids, too. What is needed is really honest sex education and free or really low cost contraception and careful directions in how to use it. When CO did that, teen pregnancies plummeted. But rape and too many kids of older married people? There are complex problems with this.

yes, it kills the unborn ..... unless you can show me a link that shows all the babies removed from women that (A) stopped the pregnancy and (B) the babies lived then you're going to have to understand you're wrong

I don't understand what you are saying here. Babies aren't inside women. Of the embryos and pre-viable fetuses inside women, when they are removed, they die. They die if they are miscarried, if the connection of placenta to woman's body is cut, and even if the woman just dies herself. Everyone knows that. It's science with objective empirical proof, not just a study here and a study there. It's why the overwhelming number of doctors and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists and the AMA are pro-choice.

again, what you are saying is living a newborn out in the snow isn't killing it - that's essentially what you're saying, and you're wrong

No, I'm saying that a newborn is a person separated from the woman's body by individualization and has a right and expectation of care by the society, but it doesn't have a right to be inside another person's body.

End Part 1

 

[weaver2]

I am not pro-life because of a "cost", I am pro-life because protecting innocent life means that much to me

You said "nobody has ever said in these 15 pages that "only the fetus has value" not once". The above statement is about as close to stating "only the fetus has value" as one can get without using the exact words.
There are other "innocents" that are deeply effected by the birth of an unplanned child, especially in low income families. More often than not the grandparents of such a child become the caretakers and for most of them the financial and physical strain reduces them to poverty status and shorten their lives significantly.

It seems irresponsible to advocate that birth be the outcome of every pregnancy without knowing anything at all about the families involved. It also seems irresponsible to advocate for banning abortion without advocating for programs assuring that all women can afford the most effective women's contraceptives. Pontificating that women shouldn't have sex unless they are prepared to give birth is sexist, unrealistic and impossible to enforce.

 

[Gordy327]

which poster was talking violence civil war earlier in thread, a pro-abortion or pro-life person ?

Historically, which group has actually committed violence against the other, notably bombings, shootings, slander, ect., pro-choice or prolife?

 

[choiceone]

and you're wrong again, as I've shown you, that women in the USA in many states do NOT get to have their unborn babies killed. You can pretend they should be able to do that and that's fine, but they CANNOT in many states have abortions in the USA.

I have explained that there are no babies inside the body of a woman. There are only embryos and fetuses. Women not only have the right to elective abortion in about 50% of states. Some state laws are against abortion and make no exception to save a woman's life and this has been challenged in court at the federal level.

no, many women don't think pregnancy is a sickness, good gawd.

Of course many women think that. Morning sickness affects a third of all women and it IS a sickness. In some countries, though not ours, it is a tradition for a woman about to give birth to gather her family to her side because the rate of death in childbirth is 1 woman's death for every 4 births.

all of that comes with pregnancy as the woman's body changes yes, absolutely .... the only way to avoid all that is to never get pregnant which is the woman's choice.

Yes, and that's the reason traditional social arrangements in all human societies try to insure that women have to be financed either by men and their families or by women and their families. Also, they tried either to make pregnancy and childbirth and child-raising easier so women would consent or forced women to breed like cattle. Take yer cherse, if they avoid it by choose of refusing to have sex, society will go bonkers.

maybe what your side really needs to focus on is women getting their tubes tied or something so they can have sex without consequences and responsivities. later in life they can have that reversed if they ever want kids

that's a solution isn't it?

The problem is that many girls don't want to get pregnant and do before they even become women. It is extremely difficult to reverse tubal ligations. But it's really easy to reverse vasectomies. And if all men got vasectomies after saving some sperm in clinic storage, they couldn't even do as much damage by rape as they do now to little girls as well as women.

if its not innocent then its guilty and ... guilty of what? but AGAIN we're not really talking about the 1-3% of those pregnancies/abortions .... its the 95-97% for convenience we're discussing

A rock is neither guilty nor innocent. Technically, you can't be guilty if you don't know the difference of right and wrong. But that doesn't make you innocent. It means you can't be guilty in a court of law.

If an insane man escapes from an asylum for the criminally insane and goes out and rapes a woman, in my state, NY, she has the right to use lethal force if necessary to stop that felony crime. That means she not only has a right to stop it when he's trying to put a body part in her but also after the body part is put in her and hasn't been removed. If she or a third party trying to help her can't get his body part out of her body without killing him, it's okay to kill him. But if they failed to do so and the insane man were arrested, they either wouldn't try him or the trial would find him not guilty because of his insanity.

When a rape embryo is inside the woman, it certainly should be recognized that she or a third party helping her has a right to get it out of her by lethal means if necessary. And by extension, if she didn't consent to its being in her body, they should have that right.

 

[choiceone]

not more and there are long term mental damages and sometimes physical damage as well from abortion - its not a 30 minute play date at an abortion clinic and go home happy you know

I think everyone would ideally want ZERO unplanned pregnancies and ZERO unwanted pregnancies .... can we all agree on that ?

Some women who get pregnant by surprise do want those pregnancies. My nephew's wife is an example. He and she were in love, living together, and planned to get married and have kids eventually and were only waiting till she finished her doctorate. When she got pregnant, my nephew said, you're almost through and we planned that anyway so let's do it, and she agreed. The point is that she wanted this if they could make it work in accord with their larger life plan.

 

[choiceone]

then we disagree on what progress is and that's ok

there are pro-abortion bullies and thugs in every states and now that your side doesn't have its way you're calling for a violent physical war ?

ok, that's your option, your choice, I don't think your side would ever win that but ooooooookay

What makes a person a bully or a thug is that he or she uses force or threat against other people to control their bodies by force. That's what anti-abortion people do. They use the law, which is backed up by physical violence and threats of prison in enforcement, to force women to continue pregnancies, just as rapists use physical violence and threats of hurting others to force rape on people.

Pro-choice means pro-choice. There's no bullying there. I would never start a war over it. If I were young, I would emigrate and change my nationality or at least move to a pro-choice state and never go to an anti-choice state, considering it equal to North Korea.

But I'm a little old lady now. If young people start a civil war over the issue, I will fight on the side I consider in accord with fundamental human rights. And it's true that if I shot or bombed anti-abortion lawmaking fanatics in doing so, I would only regret that they were so willing to violate other's basic rights that I had to do it.

 

[choiceone]

You're right - and there SHOULD have been a compromise years ago to allow abortion for incest/rape/health of mother and ban all the others that were done for convenience

I'm part of a progressive society. I understand that people's actions have consequences and they affect others almost always. That's why I cannot say "well allow all the illegals and mind my own business" or "allow all the drug use and mind my own business" etc etc

Its a social issue on a big scale - we don't allow killing of innocent life in the USA along with many other things that are not allowed. That killing unborn life was allowed was a huge error by the Supreme Court and has now been overturned and States are deciding and as time goes on, more and more states will ban the killing of unborn life IMO

The compromise that was made in the US WAS Roe v Wade. I get that you preferred the later Reagan compromise. But the reason why Roe v Wade was the sensible compromise is that it did not make the majority of women not want to get pregnant at some time in their lives. The more restrictions you impose, the less women will be inclined to want that.

Right now, thanks to the anti-abortion laws, women are quickly seeking tubal ligations even at 18, because, though they might want to produce one in the future, their own ability to control their own bodies means more to them than future reproductive capacity. And because women are usually turned away by doctors unless they have kids or are over 30, young men are quickly seeking vasectomies, and though they can be reversed, reversal is not 100% effective. They're doing that if they don't want to hurt their partners. And some, of course, are already planning not to live in anti-abortion states or to emigrate out of feat.

You may not see it yet, but this is a huge disaster for the US, because those women and men seeking sterilization are usually people with higher IQs and much better educations. The lowest intelligence, poorest education, and most manipulated by narrow religious ideology that are most likely to support anti-choice laws and to force and be forced into sexual reproduction.

So the anti-abortion laws will ultimately create a US population with increasingly lower average IQ, lower education, and narrower mind. The country will go right down the drain.

 

[choiceone]

banning abortion protects unborn life which is very much progressive

Nations with more restricted legal abortion have a higher rate of abortion overall, higher rates of death of women in childbirth, and higher rates of infant mortality (in and after childbirth). So it's not even true than abortion bans protect unborn life, and in addition, they kill women and infants in and after childbirth. Congratulations.

 

[choiceone]

nobody even checked that post down as intolerant/hate filled/unacceptable. can you imagine if a pro-life person had posted that ?

choiceone #365


We're not progressing. Some places all around the world are progressing - the Mexican Supreme Court and South Korean Supreme Court just decided that the anti-abortion laws in their nations are unconstitutional. Even the Irish government made a law allowing some abortion, and governments all over South America have been liberalizing their anti-abortion laws, too. In the US, quite a few states have constitutions that allow abortion and voters have prevented the anti-abortion legislators from imposing unpopular anti-abortion laws. But there are anti-abortion bullies and thugs in every state. If we have to have a violent physical civil war to stop them, we will, because they have nothing to do with any progess. They're rapists.

That's right. It isn't that pro-choice people will start a violent civil war. Anti-choice people will, because they are inherently rapists, who are also violent against other people's bodies.

When they do this, pro-choice people will DEFEND themselves and women because there is nothing wrong with defense. It isn't rape. That is what the civil war will be, anti-choice aggressors who start a war, and people defending themselves and others from that aggression, and that will be the war.

If you look at stats from the last several decades, you will find that anti-choice people have historically chosen to use violent force to get their way.

 

[Galactic Spin]

That's right. It isn't that pro-choice people will start a violent civil war. Anti-choice people will, because they are inherently rapists, who are also violent against other people's bodies.

When they do this, pro-choice people will DEFEND themselves and women because there is nothing wrong with defense. It isn't rape. That is what the civil war will be, anti-choice aggressors who start a war, and people defending themselves and others from that aggression, and that will be the war.

If you look at stats from the last several decades, you will find that anti-choice people have historically chosen to use violent force to get their way.

One should keep a safe distance from anti-choicers. If they really truly believe this is murder of babies then who knows what insane actions they are capable of.

 

[DrewPaul]

You seem to assume that there is a separate individual body in there. If it's an embryo or pre-viable fetus, or a non-viable fetus, it can't be separated from her body, individualized, and continue living. It's dishonest to say otherwise. And none of them are persons. Persons are, by definition, born.

By your definition. My definition is is person hood at conception. That's my honest opinion. Its not a fully functioning person. Even by your reckoning the reason the fetus doesn't become a full fledged person because they are terminated pre maturely.

 

[choiceone]

By your definition. My definition is is person hood at conception. That's my honest opinion. Its not a fully functioning person. Even by your reckoning the reason the fetus doesn't become a full fledged person because they are terminated pre maturely.

No, your definition is purely subjective. There is absolutely no evidence that an embryo has an individual mind. Mind is not just a function of a person. Personhood inextricably involves mind.

When pregnancy ends before a fetus is viable, a part of the woman's body stops growing. The life is in her, not the body part which the embryo is. If a fetus has no capacity for actual individuated life, it has no life.

Conjoined twins with two functional minds constitute two persons. Two identical twins with two individuated functional bodies have two functional minds.

But an embryo has no individuated functional body or functional mind. You have no objective empirical proof that it is a person or has ever been one.

For this reason, you are free to treat any pregnancy of your body as if an embryo inside you is a person, but you have no right to impose this definition on anyone else.

 

[AGENT J]

By your definition. My definition is is person hood at conception. That's my honest opinion.

How would "personhood" at conception work in reality?
it's not possible based on the location of the ZEF and with women having equal rights and all

 

[hecatmoggie]

As long as the will of the majority is upheld, it won’t come to that.

so you agree with violence to get your way?

And the majority of Americans are pro-choice and support abortion, with some limits.

13 states have all but banned abortion and others are going that direction as well as bigly restrictions. We'll see how people vote and how they want their states to go

The zealots are in a minority.

And, the zealots are desperate and delusional. So if they attempt, in their desperation, to overturn the will of the majority and seize control of government to force their beliefs on the rest of us…

Well, we saw 1/6.

again, your side didn't get your way in a SC ruling do now, it must be seizure of Govt and corrupt SC blah blah blah

the reality is that abortion isn't a national Constitutional Right - it never was to begin with, it was a ruling and now the ruling is that abortion isn't Constitutional and states can decide

and states are banning and severely restricting and people are very glad to see that and the loud squeaky wheel? far left zealots, you're right about that

 

[hecatmoggie]

But it is not agreement to take a pregnancy to term and give birth.

its a consequence of action

again - throwing the baby out in the cold snow (why won't anyone answer that analogy?)

 

[AGENT J]

its a consequence of action


again - throwing the baby out in the cold snow (why won't anyone answer that analogy?)

i answered it many times and proved how retarded and factually non-analogous it is LMAO
assault is not analogous to consent to sex bwhahahaha

why do you post so many lies?

 

[hecatmoggie]

I think that further traumatizing a rape victim by forcing her to say or write that she was raped in order for her to be relieved of further negative consequences of being a crime victim is outrageous. Why is it that people refuse to understand that the victim has to be alleviated of such consequences? Just because the guy is no longer actively raping her doesn't mean she isn't still being raped if she's pregnant by it.

in other words, you do not want to try and find/prosecute the rapists/incest - why in the world would you want to allow those predators to stay in society? how horrible to want them out there stalking/attacking more women

 

[hecatmoggie]

i answered it many times and proved how retarded and factually non-analogous it is LMAO
assault is not analogous to consent to sex bwhahahaha

why do you post so many lies?

I'll apologize if you can show me the post you answered the question in

When a person makes choices/decisions yes, they should be aware of the consequences - its insane to try and pawn that off and blame everyone else

 

[BirdinHand]

Now the ruling is that abortion isn't Constitutional and states can decide

That wasn’t the ruling, FYI.

You’re wrong in many ways, and that’s just another to add to the list.

 

[hecatmoggie]

I agree. But the point is that 7 of 9 SC justices had said the 14th amendment applied to women, the vast majority of people agreed, and only 5 of 9 SC justices said it didn't apply and they were all conservative Catholics with a vested interest in imposing Catholic restrictions on others. What if the SC said we hadn't had a right to the amendment so women could vote - would you like it?

no i wouldn't like that, BUT the Supreme Court decides literally what is and isn't Constitutional and since there is an amendment specifically for women to vote I doubt they could do that. But yes, the SC makes a lot of rulings I'm happy with and not happy with

The states shouldn't be violating the rights of women like this, because the SC didn't even protect a woman's right to life or right to get health care as part of liberty even if she were going to be crippled for life.

again, NOT a Right, you have to stop calling it that because it clearly IS NOT a national Constitutional Right

Choice means people can choose to have kids, too. What is needed is really honest sex education and free or really low cost contraception and careful directions in how to use it. When CO did that, teen pregnancies plummeted. But rape and too many kids of older married people? There are complex problems with this.

there are many ways to NOT have kids - I'm incapable of having kids through sex and have been since I was 32 years old. It is complex but it can be done. Allowing killing of unborns isn't the way

I don't understand what you are saying here. Babies aren't inside women. Of the embryos and pre-viable fetuses inside women, when they are removed, they die. They die if they are miscarried, if the connection of placenta to woman's body is cut, and even if the woman just dies herself. Everyone knows that. It's science with objective empirical proof, not just a study here and a study there. It's why the overwhelming number of doctors and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists and the AMA are pro-choice.

if they died, they were alive, and the actions of the abortion is what killed them

yes, miscarriage is the unborn baby dying, everyone knows this

No, I'm saying that a newborn is a person separated from the woman's body by individualization and has a right and expectation of care by the society, but it doesn't have a right to be inside another person's body.

End Part 1

what a twisted view you've woven .... saying abortion births a baby and then it dies and at the same time saying that it becomes a person the moment its born - but the act of the abortion isn't responsible for it dying .... so odd