~ MOD ALERT ~ Why is Pro-Life seen as Anti-Woman?

That's not what I said. You are making a big deal out of the semantics of the word "anti-woman". I'm pretty sure that most pro-choicers would support abortion rights for transgender men. what's so discriminatory about that?

 

It'd be like calling the US a "Christian nation" - in disregard for the Muslims, atheists, etc who live here

The "anti-woman" term is just tossed around like a power word - basically it's meant to invoke stereotypical images of women being weak and defenseless creatures who can't protect themselves without a man (this is why "anti-women" sounds bad, but "anti-men" sounds silly - since men are perceived to be 'stronger') - therefore it's used as a power-word to invoke sympathy to a cause, while ironically referencing the stereotypes mentioned above.

 

Are you pro-life or pro-choice? I can understand your opinions better if you clarify what your stance is.

 

When words such as "slut" are used tell me how that is not prejudice against women, given that a "slut" can only be female, and claiming that a small minority over weighs what the majority try to do against women is the usual pro-life response in the same way they focus on the 1% or late term abortions, but then tell pro-choicers the 1% of pregnancies caused by rape and incest are inconsequential.

Also the only way a transgender male (pre-op or post-op) can become pregnant is through artificial means and would be an artificial ectopic pregnancy by implantation, there is not a "natural" way for a transgender male (pre-op ot post-op) to become pregnant.
Transgender females may still become pregnant even though they identify as a male providing the required organs remain intact.

A true fully hermaphrodite person can not get pregnant as neither the male or female organs are complete enough to accomplish it, a female hermaphrodite (ie more female than male) can become pregnant as they can have a fully working set of organs to enable it .. though this is extremely rare, in fact I can only find one such case every happening and that is of a hermaphrodite in India with no facial hair, breasts, working ovaries and uterus plus a single testicle and penis gave birth to a still born premature child.

 

That's like saying that calling a man a "pig" is sexist, just because only men are pigs. Calling a man a pig is judging him in a negative way based upon his character and actions, not because of his gender.

 

I do agree though, that men who constantly rail on about 'teh sluts' usually do just suck when it comes to women, hence the inner rage.

 

similar to the way pro-life and pro-abortion are terms tossed about as power words - basically they are meant to invoke stereotypical images of one side being all about "saving life" while the other is about "taking life", when in reality neither is correct and why pro-lifers won't accept pro-birth as a better descriptive word of what they are.

Another example is the free and easy usage of the words "murder", "baby" and "child", all of which are either legally or medically incorrect in the context that pro-birthers use and again are projected in order to create images and emotional responses in others.

When it comes to reproductive choices pro-birthers are very much anti-women, they may not be in other things (though from some of the comments on this forum I would conclude that they are), though how anyone could think they are not when pro-birthers consistently use words such a "slut" or comments like "If a woman has sex she must accept the consequences" is beyond me.

 

I NEVER SAID THAT! If women use birth control to prevent pregnancy, then that's their business.

 

slut has a very specific meaning .. it means a woman who has many casual sexual partners, to what extent does pig have the same meaning towards a man given that calling a man a pig means a greedy, dirty, or unpleasant person and can be applied to either sex anyway. There is no word that relates to a mans sexual behavior that is anything other than complimentary, for example;

stud
player

while all the words relating to a woman's sexual behavior are derogatory, for example

slut
whore
slag

So I assert that there is a vast difference between calling a woman a slut and a man a pig.

- - - Updated - - -

did I say you did . .why do you think every comment is about you?

 

That is false. A pig can also refer to a promiscuous man.

 

A dictionary citation is required to provide evidence to that please.

-----------------

pig - 2 informal a greedy, dirty, or unpleasant person: - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pig

even the online slang dictionary doesn't agree with you - http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/pig - the closest is "a lecherous male"

(lecherous - having or showing excessive or offensive sexual desire)

and on here - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pig - the only sexual reference for pig is again aimed directly at females - "5. Slang. a slatternly, sluttish woman. "

 

The only reason I called those women sluts was because they did bad stuff.

 

like what?

Still waiting for that citation that a pig refers to a promiscuous man, or do you recant that comment?

 

1-Harm innocent children by having abortions.

2-Okay. However, I got the wrong word. The word that refers to a promiscuous man is a "dog".

 

Being a "slut" has nothing at all to do with having an abortion, or are you asserting that the married women who have abortions are also "sluts", or those who co-habit with a single partner are also "sluts", as shown slut is a very specific word with a very specific meaning .. it means a woman who has many casual sexual partners, nothing at all to do with abortion.

Fine then use it for the purpose it is meant, it still has nothing to do with abortion

 

The link provided took me to the following post:

Perhaps banning abortions does lead to a reduction in abortion (that this post disputes) but if so it does so by killing more women. Is that the choice we should make? To Kill Women because of our personal opinions. Sorry but I can support killing women based upon my personal opinions.

Should our government be engaged in legislating morality or should it be involved in protecting the rights of the person? When it comes to "abortion" there is only one person and that's the woman and her rights need to be protected.

It can also be noted that the absence of abortion laws does not create a conditions where laws encourage immorality. We don't have laws that prohibit a husband from lying to his wife, which many would call an immoral act, but that doesn't imply our government advocates it.

On a final note the majority of Americans support the Roe v Wade decision in whole or in part that prohibited most laws against abortion. The actual percentage of "anti-abortionists" is less than 30% and it's not growing. Should 30% of Americans impose their personal morality upon the other 70% of Americans?

 

Generally in our society there isn't a negative connotation related to a man being promiscuous but there is for a promiscuous woman. Generally a man that has sex with a lot of women is admired but a woman that has sex with a lot of men is condemned in our society. Hugh Hefner was generally admired while someone like Linda Lovelace, a porn film star, was generally condemned.

Our society has a definite gender bias in judging people.

 

Why do those words have negative connotations? I personally think very highly of sluts and whores and would be much less happy without them. I have only ever seen women apply them negatively. My buddies and I dig those kinds of women.

 

As you've said before, the Constitution can change and there can be a personhood amendment for fetuses. That brings up a very complicated scientific debate. Personally, I believe that since the fetus is a living human organism, it should legally be classified as a person. What are your scientific beliefs about this issue?

(this is my response to what is highlighted in black.)

That's a very interesting argument; but it all depends on whether or not the fetus is a person (a new amendment may be able to change that). If the fetus isn't a person, then yes, your argument is correct. But if the fetus is legally classified as a person, then I can justify banning abortions, despite the fact that it would result in more deaths from illegal and unsafe abortions.

Being pro life/anti-abortion does not necessarily mean that somebody is basing their views upon religion. There can be valid arguments against abortion, which are secular in nature. For example, I know some people who are pro-life, but they are not religious. Even before I had a belief in God, I had pro-life beliefs. Banning abortions, regardless of which stance you may take on this issue, is not inherently religious in nature.

However, I will quote an argument from a religious website, since it explains my opinion in a very good way.

http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life003.html

 

You are prejudiced against fetuses.

 

It has nothing to do with majorities.

If the same percentages were used to bring slavery back.... would you support 'the people's' right to own slaves again?

I doubt that you would.

So, (like slavery) it's not about the minority pushing their moral beliefs onto everyone else.

It's about the Constitutional rights to the "equal protections" of our laws.

Abortion deny a child their rights and personhood in much the same way that slavery denied the same to blacks.

It wouldn't matter if it were 90% in favor and only 10% opposed.

Human rights were being violated and that had to be corrected if the goal is to have "equal rights" and "equal justice" for all.

Now then....

This is the point where you (figuratively you) start denying that prenatal human beings are actually 'persons' under our Constitution and your side typically presents reasons why they (prenatal children) should be excluded for much the same reasons slaves were excluded....

But sooner or later (building on the language of the UVVA) we (anti-aborts) are going to prevail against those denials.

If not?

Meh.... we will just die trying.

 

if you say so

 

Your argument has been around for quite some time, and sits in the same dark backroom it has always been in......Fail.

 

You were actually correct in your original assesment that the word "pig" could be used in reference to a promiscuous man. Men who objectify women could be referred to as 'pigs'.

Most pro-choicers wish to steer abortion topics into the realm of definitions rather than face any moral discussion. They wish to wage definitions of freedom against moral issue. They wish to confuse the topic and reduce it to simple science, hence ignoring the moral and ethical obligation that is infused in the topic itself.

The term 'pig' in this case is slang and therefore open to interpretation. A war on words. This is the meat of the pro-choice argument; to eliminate the fundamentals of un-born human life out of argument by injecting a myriad of social issues to the topic. They are largely unrelated in context.

I find it appalling that those that support choice seem accutely unaware of the atrocities of abortion and defend it to support poor-choice. The priorities are genuinely confused or scrambled.

I wish you well in your continued efforts to support life. Be aware of the 'definitions' context in lieu of ethical and moral debate.

 

Yes, I've advocated addressing "personhood of the preborn" by Constitutional amendment because there is no legal precedent in the United States that the preborn are persons. A Constitutional amendment can and does establish legal precedent.

There is a pragmatic problem though in protecting the Rights of the Person though when it comes to addressing the established Rights of the Woman as a Person and future Rights of the Person of the Preborn if granted by Constitutional amendment.

An Inalienable Right is inherent in the Person and cannot conflict with or impose an obligation upon another Person.

Because the preborn and the woman are sharing the same body there is an inherent conflict and this presents a paradox. The preborn would not be an independent sovereign person but instead would be a dependent sovereign person because it is dependent upon the woman for survival that is involuntary.

Let me provide an analogy that relates to two persons by addressing a infant that is already a person. An infant has a Right to Eat as a Person but it does not have a Right to Be Fed as that would impose an involuntary obligation on another person. Under our laws, based upon compassion and not inalienable rights, we do create a legal obligation for the voluntary guardian of an infant to feed the infant but that is a voluntary obligation. A woman that has a baby is not, under our laws, required to assume voluntary guardian ship of a baby that she has. She can walk out of the hospital after giving birth and the infant will become a ward of the state and the state assumes the legal responsibility to provide for the infant. If she removes the baby after birth from the hospital then she has voluntarily assumed the legal responsibility related to the child to feed it under the law.

That doesn't apply to the "preborn" where the woman has not voluntarily assumed responsibility to feed the preborn within her. Simple having sex, when sex rarely results in pregnancy, is not a voluntary agreement to care for the preborn resulting from the sexual relationship.

So a paradox exists where a pragmatic compromise between the existing Rights of the Woman and the potential Rights of the Preborn if granted by Constitutional amendment must be reached and the criteria in reaching that pragmatic compromise is tough requiring 3/4ths of the States to ratify the Amendment. In short the arguments for "personhood" must be compelling and they must be of such a nature so that the vast majority of Americans would support the Amendment.

As a person that advocates the Rights of the Person I've tried to address the paradox and the best I can come up with is that a Constitutional Amendment would have to be based upon the natural viability of the fetus where it can be removed from the woman with probable success that it can live on its own outside of the womb. It would also have to address the possibility of a serious threat to the Right to Life of the Woman should a medical condition requiring an abortion to save her life would be addressed. Basically, when I've looked for a solution to the paradox I come up with the same criteria basically established in Roe v Wade that most Americans already agree with.

I know that doesn't make "anti-abortionists" happy but it's all I can come up with as far as what a proposed Constitutional amendment would require if there is to be any hope of ratification. I haven't even been able to craft the exact wording but believe I know the criteria that would need to be incorporated for ratification.

Hope this answers the question because I believe that a Constitutional Amendment is the only way to codify legal precedent of personhood of the preborn that would afford Protected Rights as opposed to the common law legal precedent established by the Supreme Court Roe v Wade decision based upon the US Constitution.