90% Of Women Who Have Had An Abortion Say It Was Right Decision

And again, you base this on your years of experience with your friends who have gotten married, had children, but want to get out of the marriage but don't want to pay child support....

how many like that ARE there in the 11th grade, Sam?

 

One of my relatives (who is married and has kids) wants to get divorced, but he doesn't, because he doesn't want to pay child support.

 

Well, that settles it then, doesn't it? It MUST be universally true.



truthiness (noun)

1 : "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005)

2 : "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true"

Merriam-Webster Online

 

So women aren't allowed to set their own priorities, to decide for themselves what is important to them, but their priorities must be what YOU consider appropriate? IOW, women shouldn't think, just do what they're told. And any activism to express their own thoughts is just "disgusting." Charming.

"Over sexuality" is largely the result of the capitalist society (mostly directed by men) using sex to sell things. When you say "abandonment of the home", you must be talking about women working outside the home (in addition to all the housework, cooking, childcare, etc) because actual family abandonment has been largely a practice of husbands and fathers in the past.

This doesn't make any sense to me, don't know what you are talking about.

As a result of feminism, daughters can choose whether they want to become mothers, to the benefit of children being reared by women who actually want to do so. Gangs and drugs aren't caused by feminism nor are they going to be cured by curtailing women's rights.

I hate to be the bubble breaker, but Leave It to Beaver was NEVER real. And The Stepford Wives is just wishful thinking by males of that era.

 

We both have different opinions about the issue of abortion. You (as well as other pro-choicers) believe that even if the fetus was a person, the woman still has the right to an abortion, for certain reasons. Me (and the other pro-lifers on this forum) believe that the woman has no right to an abortion, because of our belief that the fetus is an innocent child who has the right to life.

I don't expect you to agree with me. However, I find it very offensive (as well as inaccurate, since it's not what I truly believe) when you try to make it seem like the pro-life movement is somehow demeaning or degrading to women.

 

Read her comment.

 

She was talking about how women now work outside of the home, because of feminism, and she was comparing that to the pro-life movement.

 

Personally I don't see anything in the post you are referring to that even alludes to your assumption .. but don't you think that pro-choicers find it just as offensive the way that pro-lifers keep referring to them as "pro-aborts", or "immoral", or any of the other things they are called?

 

I suggest you read the following and follow the links provided in the article - http://www.trustwomenpac.org/2012/03/gender-inequality-in-the-u-s-today/

 

Are you aware of the fact that men pay more in child support than women do? That's gender discrimination against men.

 

1-Maybe you're right, but that's just how I interpreted her comment. Maybe I interpreted it the wrong way.

2-Yes.

 

Are you aware that this is changing, and as more women become the major money earning they are also having to pay greater sums in child support, which is as it should be with equality.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-husbands-alimony-child-support-before.html

 

How do you include the word suffer when you have no idea the state of mind of every woman who has gotten pregnant? Do you know that every woman suffers? yes or no. You make it seem like pregnancy is a disease, some horrible state a woman never recovers from. If there is one thing I do NOT do...misrepresent your position. I use your own words to do it.

The fact is cady the answer to the question is ....no. You can not make a blanket statement like you just did. That would be like me saying everyone with the name cady is a woman or everyone with the handle churchmouse is a woman.

And don't accuse me of altering your position...I don't.

1. You said, "I have stated my position repeatedly, that I support late term abortion for medical reasons. A woman makes her own decision well before late term, but if complications arise, she has a right to protect her own health and life."

2. You said, “No woman has a right to a pba except to save her own life. You want to take that away?”

3. You said, "Prove it is "a human." You can't, and that's why you are shrieking."

4. You said, “A society that values life will value the life of a woman and honor her choices, rather than forcing her to use her body against her will.”

(This one goes against...what you said in 1 and 2.)

5. You said, "The pro-choice position advocates women having the right to choose abortion OR birth."

This of course goes against what you said in 1 and 2)

6. You said," Many species of animals kill their young. They don't have the ability to perform medical procedures of course, so they birth their young and THEN kill them for various reasons. For example, some mammals will kill the weakest of their litter if there are too many babies to feed. Chickens will devour their own eggs if their bodies need the minerals (ovacide). Abortion is not unnatural. It's been done for as long as there have been unwanted pregnancies.”

What you are saying is that it is perfectly ok to kill ones young. But we are talking about human beings...only you don't think they are human. look at what you said in 3.

7. You said this....“A woman's uterus belongs to her even during pregnancy. It does not belong to an embryo or the state.”

(A woman is pregnant until the child is killed by an abortionist or comes naturally. Does she not own her uterus even in the late term? So how does what you say here jive with what you said in....1 and 2...where you take the womans choice the right to her uterus away?

8. You said, "Abortion is not unnatural. It's been done for as long as there have been unwanted pregnancies.”

(It is not natural for someone to kill the life in the womb...yes there has always been murder since the beginning of man....but is murdering people out of the womb natural?)

9. You said, “No, I don't have the right to tell a woman who is pregnant what to do. Do you? I understand she owns her body. Do you?”

(Is a woman pregnant in the ninth month? Sure she is. So how does what you said here jive with 1 and 2?)

10. You said, “I have many problems with the government. We all do. I don't think late term laws are necessary, because abortions at that point are for medical reasons and also because late term abortion laws can harm all pregnant women.”

(Contradicts what you said in 1 and 2)

11. “Are you shocked that I don't think a fetus is a person? I must have said it dozens of times."

(No I am not shocked because you said they were not human. Check out your comment in number 3.)

12. You said, "Women who are denied reproductive rights are not fully recognized as persons. If women don't own their uteruses, how can they be fully recognized persons?"

( What did you say in 1 and 2? Are the women you want to deny a LTA...fully recognized as people? Again this does not align with your entire position.)

So this pretty much is your position Cady...and I have never twisted any of it.

ARE these quotes accurate? You do stand behind them don't you? I mean I can tell you the post number...the threads they were taken from....you said what you said and I use them to help me make points especially when you say something contrary to what you have stated in them.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/316409-way-go-ohio-mod-alert-20.html

 

I quote cady....sharing HER beliefs.

1. You said, "I have stated my position repeatedly, that I support late term abortion for medical reasons. A woman makes her own decision well before late term, but if complications arise, she has a right to protect her own health and life."

2. You said, “No woman has a right to a pba except to save her own life. You want to take that away?”

Wow......read number 2 a few times.........NO WOMAN...had a right to a PBA....except to save her life.

You have said the unborn is not human...not a person...you say no woman should be denied an abortion there should be no laws restricting womans choice...and you said this.

LMAO

You are all over the map...all over...up and down, in and out....you don't even know how you stand and how contradictory your own quotes are. They don't align with eachother...not at all and of course I have proven this time and time again. No I take that back...I just showcase what you say...you prove your position is nothing but hypocrisy.

 

This is all a matter of opinion you said. Then as a moral relativist you see all opinions as equal right?

Then you value my opinion and don't think I am wrong, right?

 

Probably already wiped from archives.....but I've posted that quote before from CM and she doesn't deny posting it.

 

We were discussing people paying for women's expenses to leave the country or go to a pro-choice State to obtain an abortion.

CM said she had "No problem" with people doing that and BEING ALLOWED to do that. All she cared about was not having to pay for it herself.

Rather odd statement for somebody who claims to hate abortion, isn't it? "No problem"? "they should be allowed to do so"???

 

Has anybody actually stated they are a moral relativist, or is this just an opinion, because personally I would love to see a quote where someone actually states they are a moral relativist.

I would assume that the poster has some knowledge of what moral relativism actually is and therefore knows that there are various types of moral relativism, which include;

Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise. It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards. Descriptive relativists do not necessarily advocate the tolerance of all behavior in light of such disagreement; that is to say, they are not necessarily normative relativists. Likewise, they do not necessarily make any commitments to the semantics, ontology, or epistemology of moral judgements; that is, not all descriptive relativists are meta-ethical relativists. Descriptive relativism is a widespread position in academic fields such as anthropology and sociology, which simply admit that it is incorrect to assume that the same moral or ethical frameworks are always in play in all historical and cultural circumstances.

Meta-ethical moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people. The American anthropologist William Sumner was an influential advocate of this view. In his 1906 work Folkways he argues that what people consider right and wrong is entirely shaped by the traditions, customs and practices of their culture. Moreover, since there is no higher moral standard than the local mores of a culture, no trans-cultural judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a culture's mores can be justified.
Meta-ethical relativists are, firstly, descriptive relativists: they believe that, given the same set of facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do (based on societal or individual norms). What's more, they argue that one cannot adjudicate these disagreements using some independent standard of evaluation—the standard will always be societal or personal.

Normative moral relativists believe not only the meta-ethical thesis, but that it has normative implications on what we ought to do. They argue that meta-ethical relativism implies that we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. Most philosophers do not agree, partially because of the challenges of arriving at an "ought" from relativistic premises. Meta-ethical relativism seems to eliminate the normative relativist's ability to make prescriptive claims. In other words, normative relativism may find it difficult to make a statement like "we think it is moral to tolerate behaviour" without always adding "other people think intolerance of certain behaviours is moral". Philosophers like Russell Blackford even argue that intolerance is, to some degree, important. As he puts it, "we need not adopt a quietism about moral traditions that cause hardship and suffering. Nor need we passively accept the moral norms of our own respective societies, to the extent that they are ineffective or counterproductive or simply unnecessary." That is, it is perfectly reasonable (and practical) for a person or group to defend their subjective values against others, even if there is no universal prescription or morality. We can also criticize other cultures for failing to pursue even their own goals effectively.

The moral relativists may also still try to make sense of non-universal statements like "in this country, it's wrong to do X" or even "to me, it is right to do Y".

Moral universalists argue further that their system often does justify tolerance, and that disagreement with moral systems does not always demand interference, and certainly not aggressive interference. For example, the utilitarian might call another society's practice 'ignorant' or 'less moral', but there would still be much debate about courses of action (e.g. whether to focus on providing better education, or technology, etc.)

I am interested in which of the above the poster feels some others are.

 

That which is in the womb is not a part of the womans body. How was Louise Brown a part of her mother? She was conceived in a petri dish. It resides in the womb in order to grow...it is supposed to be a safe place.
Answer these questions for me.

Does the unborn have its own heart?
Does the unborn have its own circulatory system?
Does the unborn have its own fingerprints?
Does the unborn have its own organs?
Does the unborn have its own DNA?

Lets look at this biologically.

"There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body. Consider the following:

An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
Human embryos are not independently generated by the woman. According to former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop,"we should not view the unborn baby as an extension of the woman's body [because] it did not originate only from the woman. The baby would not exist without the man's seed."1
In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."2
It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body," there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother.3
As of February 2013, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws which protect the rights of unborn children independently of the mother (except in the case of abortion).4 These laws make it possible to charge someone who kills a pregnant woman with two counts of murder.
Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.5

The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.6

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body."

Did you know that half of the child’s forty-six chromosomes come from his biological father and half come from his mother? He is genetically just as much like his father as he is his mother. So based on that wouldn't you say that the father has the right to decide whether he lives or dies?

You said...."There are multiple moral solutions to an unwanted pregnancy, both are giving birth and choosing abortion. Both are perfectly acceptable and moral choices."

That is your opinion based on your morality. If you say the truth is in the eye of the beholder...I have every right to say you are wrong and for you to agree with me.
Abortion is wrong.
Lets talk about rape.....I think rape is ok. In fact I think murder is ok and pedophelia. Now tell me that I am wrong....

You said "Right, which is why a man has sole ownership and control of his reproductive organs and a woman has sole ownership and control over her reproductive organs. We are clearly on the same page here so I don't know why you continue to elaborate on this point."

Then if the woman has control over what is a part of her body and the father is not an issue...he should never have to pay a dime for the children born of his seed. He has no ties....no such thing as a dead beat dad....they are not an issue. The woman should have sole ownership.

You said you were ok with Roe the way it is. How can this be...when you said this.....

"In my opinion it's just as wrong and evil as trying to force women to endure an entire pregnancy for 9 months and then give birth. Forcing women to do anything they do not want to with such an intimate and personal part of their bodies is wrong.“

Roe limits women...takes their right to a late term abortion away. You think it should be ok to kill until the natural birth...how can you be fine with Roe?

You said, "And why should a woman give two craps if a loser leaves her after she had an abortion? You know plenty of men are pro-choice too. My fiance is just as pro-choice as I am if not more so."

Edit/Remove baiting