What attracts anti-abortion males to this site?

[Lursa]

The "empty innocence" should be valued over the life of the woman. The woman already lived part of her life, the "empty innocence" has not and IMO deserves the chance to live.

??? So a woman is done at 20-30? good lord, how little respect do you have for women? You literally just wrote that 'nothing, a vacuum,' should be valued more than women.

The woman is a contributing member of society, the unborn has only the potential for that. Why should she sacrifice her self-determination, her future, for something with such a great chance of not even being born? Or that may be born severely defective? What kind of investment for society is that?

2/3rds of embryos don’t survive

Which fertilized eggs will become healthy human fetuses? Researchers predict with 93% accuracy -- ScienceDaily

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die. The findings are important to the understanding of the fundamentals of human development at the earliest stages, which have largely remained a mystery despite the attention given to human embryonic stem cell research.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

What attracts all these uber feminists on this site? They all seem to have an agenda.

Feminism is not the only reason people support a woman's right to choose abortion. Using that logic, only feminists must have wanted women to have any rights at all that for decades were exclusive to men.

 

[Scrabaholic]

What attracts all these uber feminists on this site? They all seem to have an agenda.

What are uber feminists? Women who drive for Uber?

 

[weaver2]

What attracts all these uber feminists on this site? They all seem to have an agenda.

Conservative males are the people most likely to be discussing abortion in conjunction with a discussion on religion. I'm guessing someone started the Abortion forum to uncluttered the Religion forum. The people most likely to be countering conservatives' abortion mythology and misogyny are pro-choice women. This forum is a cross section of the men and women that believe abortion should be legal and that women should have the same freedom to make reproductive decision s men.

 

[Logical1]

Ninety percent of the males that post on the abortion site are rabidly anti-abortion. They post statements about the law, women, abortion, pregnancy, fetuses that are simply untrue. They make accusations about women that are ignorant and rude. They ignore sourced material proving them to be lying and go right back to posting the same lies. They make up impossible situations then demand women defend themselves against these nonsense scenarios.

Why do they post here? They don't have a good grasp of the subject. Are they trying to scold women into abandoning the pro-choice position? Teach them who is boss. Shame shame women into obedience?


Anti-abortion men; what's your purpose for being on this thread?

Morals!!!!

 

[weaver2]

Morals!!!!

The morals most commonly posted here by conservative males condemn women who get abortions without knowing the woman or her family's situation . You have no idea whether her decision is moral or not. Yet you condemn.

In an anti-abortion organizations dedicated to excoriating women who get abortions you might be better off looking after the hypocrisy of your own women who get abortion just as often as any other women and then lie about it, something pro-choice women do not do.

 

[MamboDervish]

I am one of many who disagrees. At least if the abortion is carried out past 12 weeks.

What is magical about 12 weeks?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

What is magical about 12 weeks?

Nothing. Most abortions are performed during the first 12 weeks, but they legally can be done after that.

 

[smallvoice]

Spoken truly like someone whose life will never be threatened by pregnancy....

So you claim that all pregnant women’s lives are threatened by pregnancy. You have no trust in what has occurred over the eons,so you accept that any pregnancy can be terminated on a whim, or as you say, because the “rights of the mother” outweigh her responsibility to bring her fetus to life. That shows the utter weakness of your position and the depth of destitution of abortion on demand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Scrabaholic]

So you claim that all pregnant women’s lives are threatened by pregnancy. You have no trust in what has occurred over the eons,so you accept that any pregnancy can be terminated on a whim, or as you say, because the “rights of the mother” outweigh her responsibility to bring her fetus to life. That shows the utter weakness of your position and the depth of destitution of abortion on demand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do NOT put words in my mouth.

Women do not abort 'on a whim'. Do some research, talk to women who've aborted, listen to their stories. Good grief.

BTW, there is no 'responsibility' to 'bring her fetus to life'. (Are you saying a fetus isn't alive?)

 

[Lursa]

So you claim that all pregnant women’s lives are threatened by pregnancy. You have no trust in what has occurred over the eons,so you accept that any pregnancy can be terminated on a whim, or as you say, because the “rights of the mother” outweigh her responsibility to bring her fetus to life. That shows the utter weakness of your position and the depth of destitution of abortion on demand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Women have died during pregnancy and childbirth over the eons. :doh

What is your point? That you believe the govt has the right to force women to remain pregnant against our will with laws or physical force? Do you? Yes or no?

Of course her rights, up to and including her life, are morally and intrinsically and socially of more value than the unborns' life.

You've completely ignored the list I've posted that shows how responsible having an abortion can be (that's a moral cowardice right there, not even owning up to reality when it's posted) but here's another fact for you:

2/3rds of all embryos don’t survive

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm*

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die. The findings are important to the understanding of the fundamentals of human development at the earliest stages, which have largely remained a mystery despite the attention given to human embryonic stem cell research.*

Why should a woman that doesnt want or cant afford a kid sacrifice her health, her ability to work and support her dependents, her ability to uphold her commitments and obligations to community, church, employer, society, for something with such high odds of not even being born?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[weaver2]

So you claim that all pregnant women’s lives are threatened by pregnancy. You have no trust in what has occurred over the eons,so you accept that any pregnancy can be terminated on a whim, or as you say, because the “rights of the mother” outweigh her responsibility to bring her fetus to life. That shows the utter weakness of your position and the depth of destitution of abortion on demand.

I don't recognize Scrabaholic's opinions about abortion in anything you have posted but I'm assuming that you believe the opposite of what ever you've assigned to Scrabaholic and other pro-choice women.

It's always amusing when anti-abortion males lecture women that their responsibility to produce children is eons old and that abortions will destroy them, make them depressed cause breast cancer and a lot of other crap they've made up to convince themselves that women themselves are the problem not the unplanned pregnancies, not the men, not the faulty birth control not the lack of family security. They are the problem. They insist on rights and shirk their responsibility to the fetus. They demand abortions on a whim. They are selfish. Men need to take control so pregnancy ends in a birth like God ordained.

Anti abortion men have so much knowledge. They carry so big a burden. :violin

 

[smallvoice]

I don't recognize Scrabaholic's opinions about abortion in anything you have posted but I'm assuming that you believe the opposite of what ever you've assigned to Scrabaholic and other pro-choice women.

It's always amusing when anti-abortion males lecture women that their responsibility to produce children is eons old and that abortions will destroy them, make them depressed cause breast cancer and a lot of other crap they've made up to convince themselves that women themselves are the problem not the unplanned pregnancies, not the men, not the faulty birth control not the lack of family security. They are the problem. They insist on rights and shirk their responsibility to the fetus. They demand abortions on a whim. They are selfish. Men need to take control so pregnancy ends in a birth like God ordained.

Anti abortion men have so much knowledge. They carry so big a burden. :violin

Nah, it's women themselves with their unplanned pregnancies that are the burden. Their attitudes that they alone have rights, even when they caused their pregnancy with a little help from their friends, who have absolutely NO rights in the decision to abort THEIR progeny. Yeah, that's the way God ordained that pregnancies should end, at the end of an abortionist's knife.

 

[Lursa]

Nah, it's women themselves with their unplanned pregnancies that are the burden. Their attitudes that they alone have rights, even when they caused their pregnancy with a little help from their friends, who have absolutely NO rights in the decision to abort THEIR progeny. Yeah, that's the way God ordained that pregnancies should end, at the end of an abortionist's knife.

More and more ignorance from you...it's sad because it shows you are incapable of actually understanding facts.

--You've been informed...and most adults realize...that a woman/family with kids they cant afford are more of a burden on our taxes and public assistance networks. Abortion is one way to reduce the burden you are complaining about.

--The men who have sex with women KNOW they have no right to decide what a woman decides re: a pregnancy...so if they decide to have sex anyway, then they also have to accept the consequences: her choice. Are you saying men dont have the ability to understand this or to refrain from having sex? Me? I believe men are capable and thus, responsible for 'their' choices.

--You also know that 97.5% of all abortions consist of flushing a raspberry or smaller sized unborn painlessly from the womb, yet you are still so disturbingly wrapped up in your false 'knife' narrative...try to absorb the facts first before getting all emotional...obviously your feelings keep you from a better understanding of this issue. No one cares if you agree but it would be nice to see you actually understood the facts.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[weaver2]

Nah, it's still murder.

and you are saying that the round-heels weren't educated enough to use some form of contraception, didn't want to be mothers? They are not only ignorant, but without morals.

Round heels?? Without morals?? Probably liberal sluts, right? I'm guessing you don't know 50% of the women that get abortions are good Christian, Trump voting, conservatives that march in anti-abortion parades, picket PP Clinics and sneak into the same clinics and get abortions when faced with unwanted pregnancies They get exactly the same number of abortions for exactly the same reasons as pro-choice women. There is one difference. Pro-choice people don't lie about what they have done. They aren't hypocrites.

 

[Lursa]

Round heels?? Without morals?? Probably liberal sluts, right? I'm guessing you don't know 50% of the women that get abortions are good Christian, Trump voting, conservatives that march in anti-abortion parades, picket PP Clinics and sneak into the same clinics and get abortions when faced with unwanted pregnancies They get exactly the same number of abortions for exactly the same reasons as pro-choice women. There is one difference. Pro-choice people don't lie about what they have done. They aren't hypocrites.

From previous responses, I dont think that facts matter at all to that poster. Some are just led by the nose by religious dogma and their feelings. He's been presented with facts and science and the realities that women and families face and has never shown any cognitive absorption of those things. A closed mind cannot be pried open.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[weaver2]

From previous responses, I dont think that facts matter at all to that poster. Some are just led by the nose by religious dogma and their feelings.

They can ignore a lot of facts and dismiss any information they like but eventually they will have to confront their hypocrisy about who gets abortions. Eventually, someone very close to them has had an abortion, lies about it but doesn't regret it and hasn't gone into deep depression over it. How does one defend one's niece or daughter who has had an abortion, isn't sorry, is glad she can finish her studies, get a job, live unencumbered by a child she didn't want and couldn't have supported but condemns another woman in the same position. Can one live with the dishonesty of saying my daughter's situation was special, she had to have an abortion, you, you're just a round heeled immoral slut too lazy to use birth control.

 

[smallvoice]

Round heels?? Without morals?? Probably liberal sluts, right? I'm guessing you don't know 50% of the women that get abortions are good Christian, Trump voting, conservatives that march in anti-abortion parades, picket PP Clinics and sneak into the same clinics and get abortions when faced with unwanted pregnancies They get exactly the same number of abortions for exactly the same reasons as pro-choice women. There is one difference. Pro-choice people don't lie about what they have done. They aren't hypocrites.

I have to throw the BS card on your post. I’m sure you have NO idea what percent of which group gets an abortion, nor why, but it sounds good to you. I personally don’t care if someone gets an abortion, I just don’t believe they should expect the taxpayer to pay for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

I have to throw the BS card on your post. I’m sure you have NO idea what percent of which group gets an abortion, nor why, but it sounds good to you. I personally don’t care if someone gets an abortion, I just don’t believe they should expect the taxpayer to pay for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you've seen this before too, so your position, if it's about $$, makes no sense at all:

U.S. Taxpayers Save $7 For Every Dollar The Government Spends On Family Planning – ThinkProgress

And this is just common sense, it shouldnt require links to prove that not having an extra kid to feed and help support with public assistance and put thru public school, etc costs less than having that kid.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[weaver2]

I have to throw the BS card on your post. I’m sure you have NO idea what percent of which group gets an abortion, nor why, but it sounds good to you. I personally don’t care if someone gets an abortion, I just don’t believe they should expect the taxpayer to pay for it.

37% of the women getting abortions come from religious groups that strongly advocate against abortion. 38% of the women that get abortions come from a group that has no affiliations with any religion. This is the group that is primarily pro-choice. I seldom post information I can't back up with valid statistics or well designed studies.


From the Guttmacher Institute: Religious Affiliation** *
The majority of abortion patients indicated a religious affiliation: Seventeen percent identified as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Roman Catholic, while 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients did not identify with any religion. The proportion of women who identified as mainline Protestant declined by 24% since 2008, whereas the proportion with no affiliation increased by 38%. The proportion identifying as Catholic decreased by 15% from the earlier survey, though this change was only marginally significant.*
The abortion index for Catholic women showed that their relative abortion rate was nearly the same as that for all women (1.1). Mainline Protestants were slightly underrepresented among abortion patients (0.8), while evangelical Protestants had an abortion rate that was half of the national average. Patients with no affiliation were overrepresented among abortion patients, having a relative abortion rate of 1.8. The abortion index had declined slightly for mainline Protestants, and had increased slightly for those with no affiliation.*
Our measure of religious affiliation was adopted from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). Respondents were asked “What religion are you now, if any?” (question 17), and a follow-up item determined if they were fundamentalist (question 18). Following the NSFG, we asked about four categories of evangelism, but for purposes of this survey, we collapsed them into one category. Patients who selected “other” religion were asked to specify which religion, and 991 of the 1,239 eligible did so. In line with the NSFG, we coded patients who wrote in that they were Christian (no denomination given) as Protestant. Our measure of religious affiliation in the 2008 and 2014 surveys distinguishes between mainline Protestants, evangelical Protestants, Catholics, those affiliated with some other religion and those with no religious affiliation. (Individuals who indicated that they were evangelical but affiliated with Catholicism or some other religion were not included in our measure of evangelicals.)
Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008 | Guttmacher Institute

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Morals!

Anti-choicers are the people who do NOT have morals.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Nah, it's women themselves with their unplanned pregnancies that are the burden. Their attitudes that they alone have rights, even when they caused their pregnancy with a little help from their friends, who have absolutely NO rights in the decision to abort THEIR progeny. Yeah, that's the way God ordained that pregnancies should end, at the end of an abortionist's knife.

There has never been and never will be a reason to hate women. It is never their responsibility for putting more unwanted babies on the planet. Only men are responsible for it. That is a fact.

 

[Troodon Roar]

Can you please explain why you value an 'innocence' of nothingness? The unborn cannot think, cannot act, cannot even form intent. That 'innocence' is no different than the 'innocence' of a flower or a couch. That is the 'innocence' of a vacuum, of emptiness. Can you please explain why you value that over the entirety of a woman's life and future?

And what is the woman guilty of?

Because I don’t buy the ideology of materialism which states that consciousness arises from matter, and hence, that only certain complex arrangements of matter (such as brains) possess it.

You compare a ZEF to a flower or a couch, but ironically, there is actually a view called panpsychism, which is now gaining prominence among philosophers and even neuroscientists, which proposes that all matter might be conscious. So this would include flowers and couches, and of course, ZEF’s.

And therefore, I think every single living organism is equal in value, and deserves equal rights. Hence why I also support animal rights, which goes hand in hand with my support for prenates’ rights. In fact, I consider them to be basically one and the same fight, since, after all, humans are animals. So human ZEF’s, like nonhuman animals, are animals who are denied personhood because they are not postnatal humans, which are the only creatures on the planet to whom personhood is currently granted. So to me, supporting rights for unborn humans is actually part of my support for animal rights. So to sum up, that’s why I’m here. Because I support animal rights. Which includes unborn humans’ rights. Because I believe in complete equality for all living organisms. The phrase “non-person” simply has no place in my lexicon. There’s no such thing as a “non-person” to me. Equality for all, and by all, I literally mean ALL.

It’s really that simple.

And I oppose misogyny for the exact same reason I support equality for the unborn; it is a form of discrimination, just like discrimination against the unborn. In fact, similar arguments based on materialism were previously used to deny women rights. It was argued that the structure of women’s brains made them less intelligent than men and unable to vote to deny them suffrage, for example. Had I lived back then, you can bet I would have been a passionate proponent of women’s rights, and would have felt just as strongly and passionately about women’s rights as I now do about prenates’ rights and non-humans’ rights.

So go ahead. Call me a misogynist. I’ll just be over here laughing, as I watch you repeat history by using the misogynists’ playbook to further the oppression of marginalized groups today.

Note: “ZEF” stands for “Zygote, Embryo, or Fetus”.

 

[weaver2]

Because I don’t buy the ideology of materialism which states that consciousness arises from matter, and hence, that only certain complex arrangements of matter (such as brains) possess it.

You compare a ZEF to a flower or a couch, but ironically, there is actually a view called panpsychism, which is now gaining prominence among philosophers and even neuroscientists, which proposes that all matter might be conscious. So this would include flowers and couches, and of course, ZEF’s.

And therefore, I think every single living organism is equal in value, and deserves equal rights. Hence why I also support animal rights, which goes hand in hand with my support for prenates’ rights. In fact, I consider them to be basically one and the same fight, since, after all, humans are animals. So human ZEF’s, like nonhuman animals, are animals who are denied personhood because they are not postnatal humans, which are the only creatures on the planet to whom personhood is currently granted. So to me, supporting rights for unborn humans is actually part of my support for animal rights. So to sum up, that’s why I’m here. Because I support animal rights. Which includes unborn humans’ rights. Because I believe in complete equality for all living organisms. The phrase “non-person” simply has no place in my lexicon. There’s no such thing as a “non-person” to me. Equality for all, and by all, I literally mean ALL.

It’s really that simple.

And I oppose misogyny for the exact same reason I support equality for the unborn; it is a form of discrimination, just like discrimination against the unborn. In fact, similar arguments based on materialism were previously used to deny women rights. It was argued that the structure of women’s brains made them less intelligent than men and unable to vote to deny them suffrage, for example. Had I lived back then, you can bet I would have been a passionate proponent of women’s rights, and would have felt just as strongly and passionately about women’s rights as I now do about prenates’ rights and non-humans’ rights.

So go ahead. Call me a misogynist. I’ll just be over here laughing, as I watch you repeat history by using the misogynists’ playbook to further the oppression of marginalized groups today.

Note: “ZEF” stands for “Zygote, Embryo, or Fetus”.

Your philosophical belief works for you. Everybody has a right to believe what they want. That's a right guaranteed by the Constitution. The problem comes when some group mistakenly thinks their beliefs are decreed by a higher authority than the Constitution and ought to be encoded into our legal system denying others their right to make personal decisions about their private lives. Believing that a fetus has the same rights as the already born is your personal choice. It needs to be respected and will be as long as you don't get the government to make it the law of the United States that everybody has to follow whether they believe or not.

 

[Lursa]

Because I don’t buy the ideology of materialism which states that consciousness arises from matter, and hence, that only certain complex arrangements of matter (such as brains) possess it.

You compare a ZEF to a flower or a couch, but ironically, there is actually a view called panpsychism, which is now gaining prominence among philosophers and even neuroscientists, which proposes that all matter might be conscious. So this would include flowers and couches, and of course, ZEF’s.

See bold: Nope, right there either you didnt read properly or you didnt understand what you read. I compared someone else's usage of 'innocence' to the same 'innocence' capacity of those other 2 things. I did not compare the unborn to them.

And therefore, I think every single living organism is equal in value, and deserves equal rights. Hence why I also support animal rights, which goes hand in hand with my support for prenates’ rights. In fact, I consider them to be basically one and the same fight, since, after all, humans are animals. So human ZEF’s, like nonhuman animals, are animals who are denied personhood because they are not postnatal humans, which are the only creatures on the planet to whom personhood is currently granted. So to me, supporting rights for unborn humans is actually part of my support for animal rights. So to sum up, that’s why I’m here. Because I support animal rights. Which includes unborn humans’ rights. Because I believe in complete equality for all living organisms. The phrase “non-person” simply has no place in my lexicon. There’s no such thing as a “non-person” to me. Equality for all, and by all, I literally mean ALL.

It’s really that simple.

And I oppose misogyny for the exact same reason I support equality for the unborn; it is a form of discrimination, just like discrimination against the unborn. In fact, similar arguments based on materialism were previously used to deny women rights. It was argued that the structure of women’s brains made them less intelligent than men and unable to vote to deny them suffrage, for example. Had I lived back then, you can bet I would have been a passionate proponent of women’s rights, and would have felt just as strongly and passionately about women’s rights as I now do about prenates’ rights and non-humans’ rights.

So go ahead. Call me a misogynist. I’ll just be over here laughing, as I watch you repeat history by using the misogynists’ playbook to further the oppression of marginalized groups today.

Note: “ZEF” stands for “Zygote, Embryo, or Fetus”.

I just skimmed the rest. I dont believe I made any of those assertions, perhaps you meant to post them to someone else.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa