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

"Supporting life" without helping a single person, but putting women's lives in danger. "Ethical and moral" indeed.

 

Having already address the paradox of personhood for the preborn and the fact that a Constitutional amendment would have to address a pragmatic resolution of the personhood of the preborn I can only note that the "Christian" argument here fails as the issue isn't "human being" but instead "person" so their argument is invalid. Being "human" is not the issue because just being "human" does not establish Rights that only relate to the Person. The appendix is "human" but it is not a person.

That is where many "anti-abortionists" fail is because they don't understand the concept of Inalienable Rights of the Person. By analogy its like the "creationists" that don't understand the difference between a "scientific theory" and a "religious belief" trying to equate both as if they're the same but they're not.

If I was to put it into a mathematical express then I would state, "Human being is equal to or less than Person." It's very similar to the terms "Person" and "Citizen" as used in the Constitution. All Citizens are Persons but not all Persons are Citizens. All Persons are Human Beings but not all Human Beings are Persons under the Constitution.

 

You promote my original sentiment well. A look into statements-not-there. I hinted at nothing you stated here.

Perhaps you could be more direct at what you were implying. (?)

In case you were implying that a woman should render her own life behind a fetus in the case of a complicated pregnancy: I support (fully) the mother's choice to save her own life above all other choices.

 

Constitutional protections only relate to persons. A child is a Person established by birth and has protected Rights. The preborn are not "persons" and have no protected Rights. As I've just addressed to impart Rights to the Preborn can only be established by a Constitutional Amendment. Equal protection under the law only applies to "persons" as established by the 14th Amendment.

For a Constitutional Amendment to be ratified it requires 3/4ths of the states to ratify so obviously an Amendment to provide "Personhood" to the "preborn" is going to have to be based upon compelling arguments that convince the majority of people to support it just as the 13th and 14th Amendments required compelling arguments to end slavery, establish natural born citizenship, and equal protection under the law for persons.

 

Criminalizing abortion does not reduce the number of abortions. As studies and statistics from other countries show, it only results in more maternal deaths.

 

If it's "like slavery"....who is the "slave-master" in your analogy?

 

Feministing recently posted some Guttmacher stats related to the rates of women using contraception and unintended pregnancy as well. http://feministing.com/2013/09/17/infographic-this-is-what-unintended-pregancies-look-like/

And again they pointed out how pro-life policies against birth control actually raise abortion rates.

- - - Updated - - -

If it's like slavery or the Holocaust I am going to say it's a strawman/red herring and they use those points because they don't have a real leg to stand on in this debate so they have to stand on another topic's leg.

 

Which is why me, as a pro-lifer, supports birth control.

But why are so many pro-lifers against birth control if it saves lives? Theyre such hypocrites (unless they believe that birth control actually increases abortion rates.)

 

And yet you are a minority in your group. Pro-life leaders don't want women to have free or easy access to birth control. Some even believe birth control is equivalent to an abortion.

*shrugs* All I can say is that most people's beliefs against birth control stem from religion since religion has almost always adamantly opposed it...then you take a look at most (not ALL, but most) pro-lifers and see what faiths they follow and I think you'll find your answer.

Here is how birth control works if anyone cares about the Science behind it. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/birth-control-pill.htm

 

Take a guess. Do you think that most of those pro-lifers know that birth control reduces abortion rates (but they just care more about stopping birth control than saving lives), or do you think that most of them sincerely believe that birth control increases abortion rates (which is why they would be against it)?

 

If they truly believe that birth control increases abortion...somehow???...then all I can say is that they have fallen prey to the religiously based propaganda spread by the religious pro-life leaders who oppose birth control solely based on their religious beliefs and NOT real Science.

Hormonal birth control stops the ovaries from releasing eggs and you can't have a zef/baby without eggs to inseminate, so I don't know how anyone who has even the tiniest grasp on how hormonal birth control works would ever think that.

 

Asking that question of their analogies ("slavery=abortion" or "abortion=Holocaust")....rapidly shows the MISOGYNY of many of the "pro-lifers".....for it's obvious, isn't it?

If the fetus is the "slave" or "Jew"?.....then the "pro-lifers" are calling women "slave-masters" or "Nazis".

This may be conscious or even unconscious....but it still shows where their mind is at as it comes to their view of women.

 

Clearly.

 

How am I being misogynistic?

 

As said to Sam that comment requires a dictionary definition to support it, where as I have provided not only standard dictionary definitions but also a slang definition, none of which attribute the word pig to mean a promiscuous man

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/mea...inition-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. "

Whose morals .. yours, and what makes your morals any better than any other person and why should your morals (or that of most pro-lifers) that only tally 30% of those against abortion be forced upon the other 70% .. that is not democracy.

Already posted the slang definition, and as it shows it is not open to interpretation, further the whole issue of the words was raised when a poster decided to call all women who have abortions sluts, that is a derogatory comment and has nothing to do with abortion, it is a word based around the sexual practice of some women.

The meat of the pro-choice argument, really .. I suggest you actually read a few more debates before making such an inane comment.

I also find it appalling that those that support degrading of women to the extent of forcing them by law to continue to allow un-consented damage to their body are acutely aware that any anti-abortions laws are not worth the paper they are written on and only cause further death.

 

You relate women to "making fetuses slaves"....ergo you are comparing women to slave-masters.

Naturally, you don't "see it that way" because you don't actually think much about what you say, Sam. Not trying to be mean, but it's true. You just say stuff that "sounds good"...without actually examining it...and when questioned on it, you get flummoxed and try to change the subject to "Is a fetus a person?" where you're more comfortable.

Whether it's using "abortion=slavery" analogies....or trying to explain how an Abortion Prohibition would "work" ....it's your modus operandi now.

 

I didn't post an argument, so I have no idea what you think you were attacking by saying that.

 

Though I pay little attention to your posts, and thus do not much remember why I commented....Likely it was in response to this:

A very tried and true BS argument by those who have limited understanding of the topic, and somewhat ignorant opinions on both constitutional law, and what migght constitute a person.

 

Corporations (legal persons) included.

1. You are using circular logic by citing the very premise that is being challenged as an authority unto itself.
2. The argument will be made before the courts that child persons are 'born' in that respect at and by the moment of their conception.

That claim is destroyed by the language and convictions under 18 USC § 1841 a law which makes it a crime of MURDER to illegally kill a human
child in the womb at ANY stage of their development.

The UVVA has already refuted that assertion as well.

The 14th Amendment does not define "personhood" and the SCOTUS acknowledged that point in when deciding Roe.

The UVVA shows that no such an amendment is necessary.

 

Opinion noted.

Opinion that is also refuted by the language of the UVVA.

 

Please expand on this comment....I'm in something of a mood< and was unaware a 501C3 organization was considered pertinent in discussion.

 

Anyone who denies the personhood of the human beings (children) who are being killed.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said anything about those?

 

You did.....perhaps you forgot.

 

Not specifically, I didn't.