[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;33936317]Still I disagree. The difference between being pro choice and pro life is that pro life decides the rule for EVERYONE. If you're for pro choice legislation, all that does is enable women to have a choice. If you are still against abortion, you can choose not to have one. It's that simple.
Pro choice does not equate to pro abortion (if there even is such a standpoint).[/QUOTE]
When the majority of the pro-life argument is the idea that it is wrong to take a life and that an unborn baby is considered "alive" (by pro-life), I think it isn't fair to say that pro-choice should be the only thing men support, and they should be able to support either.
[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;33934903]Nothing bothers me more than pro-life men. 'Hey, let's outlaw a procedure that we'll never have to think about getting for a pregnancy we'll never have!'[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. I hate to pull out the 'you can't understand this because you're not female like me' card, but it's so relevant in this case. My boyfriend wholeheartedly supports my right to terminate a pregnancy (as you can tell by his posts in this thread), and I would never, ever date a man who didn't.
[editline]29th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33934497]What other argument do you need?
"Pfft, those guys think murder is wrong. Like that's much of a case"[/QUOTE]
Because it isn't murder. So, no, it's not much of a case. I mean, women lose fertilized eggs that wash down the toilet all the time, and sometimes it's because of their own (unknowing) actions. How far do you take it? Does a woman who is pregnant but isn't aware, and accidentally takes an abortifacient guilty of murder? Manslaughter? Isn't that totally fucking ridiculous?
There's some debate about whether some contraceptives are classified as abortifacients. Some of them, like a condom, operate by making it more difficult for the sperm to reach the egg, which means that conception cannot occur (ofc., they don't always work). However, some of them - like all birth control pills, IUDs, or morning after pills - work also or instead by making the uterine wall inhospitable, which means a fertilized egg cannot attach itself. This is a separate event that occurs about a week after conception - which means by your standard, a woman who takes any birth control pill and engages in sex without using another form of contraception is very likely guilty of murder.
[QUOTE=Sanius;33935593]one of the most baffling things in the world to me is the fact that any woman can claim to be pro-life
[/QUOTE]
Just because they claim to be 'pro-life' doesn't mean they won't have abortions
[quote]Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981 (1) [B]found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong[/B], and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally." [B]A 1994/95 survey (2,3) of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians.[/B] Many of these women are likely anti-choice. The survey also showed that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. [B]A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic.[/B]
[B]Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique -- not like those "other" women -- even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons. [/B]Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory). Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. [B]Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call "sluts" and "trash." Or if they do, they get angry when other patients in the waiting room talk or laugh, because it proves to them that women get abortions casually, for "convenience".[/B][/quote]
[QUOTE=Contag;33938674]Just because they claim to be 'pro-life' doesn't mean they won't have abortions[/QUOTE]
anti-everyone-else's-choice
[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;33934903]Nothing bothers me more than pro-life men. 'Hey, let's outlaw a procedure that we'll never have to think about getting for a pregnancy we'll never have!'[/QUOTE]
There are a lot of politicians who have never owned businesses. By your logic there should be no regulation of business.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33942199]There are a lot of politicians who have never owned businesses. By your logic there should be no regulation of business.[/QUOTE]
Except owning a business isn't a human right. And the regulation of business isn't violating human rights.
Honestly if you don't know the difference between pregnancy and businesses, well, you're just kind of proving how you should have absolutely no say whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33942199]There are a lot of politicians who have never owned businesses. By your logic there should be no regulation of business.[/QUOTE]
Did you seriously just compare the possession of female sexual reproductive organs to owning a business?
Also, it's within the realm of possibility for a politician to own a business. But biological human males cannot give birth.
[QUOTE=Contag;33942237]Except owning a business isn't a human right. And the regulation of business isn't violating human rights.
Honestly if you don't know the difference between pregnancy and businesses, well, you're just kind of proving how you should have absolutely no say whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
It's not a human right, though.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33942199]There are a lot of politicians who have never owned businesses. By your logic there should be no regulation of business.[/QUOTE]
Do you want to answer the question I asked you?
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33942199]There are a lot of politicians who have never owned businesses. By your logic there should be no regulation of business.[/QUOTE]
the brilliance of capitulazyguy astounds me
[QUOTE=Contag;33942237]Except owning a business isn't a human right. And the regulation of business isn't violating human rights.
Honestly if you don't know the difference between pregnancy and businesses, well, you're just kind of proving how you should have absolutely no say whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
Abortion isn't a human right either lmao
Life, however, is
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33942199]There are a lot of politicians who have never owned businesses. By your logic there should be no regulation of business.[/QUOTE]
Damn straight
As men who were born with a business, we should know
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33942831]Abortion isn't a human right either lmao
Life, however, is[/QUOTE]
If sovereignty over your own body is a human right, then abortion needs to be as well
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33942982]Damn straight
As men who were born with a business, we should know
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
If sovereignty over your own body is a human right, then abortion needs to be as well[/QUOTE]
You can't make that argument to conservatives; they don't believe that aborting a fetus (that could barely be classified as a separate being) falls under what happens to the body of a woman (even though it does).
Just like how they don't want people to do drugs, or have gay sex.
Republicans want to keep abortions illegal because they need more cannon fodder. You know, to help fight the "war on terror".
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33909538][release]defense of the unborn.[/release][/QUOTE]
That's pretty creepy.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33942982]If sovereignty over your own body is a human right, then abortion needs to be as well[/QUOTE]
Well there are problems with that argument:
1. The fetus is not the woman's body
2. Sovereignty over the body is barely a protected right anyways, look at drug laws
see the above post to prove my point
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33943662]Well there are problems with that argument:
1. The fetus is not the woman's body
2. Sovereignty over the body is barely a protected right anyways, look at drug laws[/QUOTE]
1. It relies 100% on nutrients taken directly from elsewhere in the body so yes it is
2. Current drug laws are a travesty
Saying something inside the woman's body is not part of the woman's body is basically biological slavery
I'm not killing the baby, I'm just advising it seek alternate residence.
You wouldn't allow people to reside in your house without paying, and same too with the fetus in the womb.
If the fetus is truly a person, then it should pay rent whatever value the mother charges, otherwise face eviction. The invisible hand will guide market forces, and an equilibrium will be reached between womb foreclosure and fetus birth.
If a charity organization is distressed about the number of womb evictions, then they may provide alternate hosts and contract into a Womb Transfer Agreement. Obviously the price of a WTA is dictated by the free market, and at a certain point the supply of fetuses will surely outstrip demand. On the upside, the implementation of neoliberal free market ideals into the abortion debate means that there will be an economic incentive for charity organizations, fetuses and patrons of fetuses to innovate and develop an artificial or even womb-free method of gestation.
haha
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33943888]1. It relies 100% on nutrients taken directly from elsewhere in the body so yes it is
2. Current drug laws are a travesty
Saying something inside the woman's body is not part of the woman's body is basically biological slavery[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but biologically the fetus is a separate organism
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33944510]I'm sorry but biologically the fetus is a separate organism[/QUOTE]
So is a tape worm.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33942831]Life, however, is[/QUOTE]
Right to the means necessary to sustain life isn't. The state currently has no obligation to make sure every single member of the population survives, so why would there be a special case made for [I]new[/I] members? If right to life was the basis of your argument against abortion, you'd first need to argue for socialized medicine and better welfare programs in order to be logically consistent.
Maybe you do. Do you? I'm curious.
And you'd also need to outlaw hormonal contraceptives.
And vitamin c. And everything else that can be used as an abortifacient accidentally.
What if the woman miscarriaged because she had low pregosterone, and she knew it, but didn't treat it? What if she was using a fertility treatment like IMF, and was implanted with several embryos knowing some of those would most likely fail? What if a woman has a medical condition that can increase the risk factor for miscarriage, and chooses to try for pregnancy anyhow? What if she undergoes an intense period of stress and miscarriages? If embryos are exactly the same, morally, as a child outside of the uterus, wouldn't these cases be considered murder or, at the least, manslaughter?
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33942831]Abortion isn't a human right either lmao
Life, however, is[/QUOTE]
Better start protecting sperm then, boyo!
[QUOTE=Sanius;33944547]So is a tape worm.[/QUOTE]
What's your point? Tape worms are involuntary and aren't even human in first place. They have no right to life.
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33944905]And you'd also need to outlaw hormonal contraceptives.
And vitamin c. And everything else that can be used as an abortifacient accidentally.
What if the woman miscarriaged because she had low pregosterone, and she knew it, but didn't treat it? What if she was using a fertility treatment like IMF, and was implanted with several embryos knowing some of those would most likely fail? What if a woman has a medical condition that can increase the risk factor for miscarriage, and chooses to try for pregnancy anyhow? What if she undergoes an intense period of stress and miscarriages? If embryos are exactly the same, morally, as a child outside of the uterus, wouldn't these cases be considered murder or, at the least, manslaughter?[/QUOTE]
No, because those are not directly killing the fetus. It's not murder.
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;33944952]Better start protecting sperm then, boyo![/QUOTE]
Sperm aren't human until they fertilize an egg
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33945009]
Sperm aren't human until they fertilize an egg[/QUOTE]
A foetus isn't a developed human, it's a foetus.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33945009]What's your point? Tape worms are involuntary and aren't even human in first place. They have no right to life.
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
No, because those are not directly killing the fetus. It's not murder.
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
[b]Sperm aren't human until they fertilize an egg[/b][/QUOTE]
We can use that same logic for fetus's.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33945009]
No, because those are not directly killing the fetus. It's not murder.
[/QUOTE]
AND NEITHER IS ABORTION.
How many times do you have to hear this?
[editline]29th December 2011[/editline]
But how does this logic work, anyhow, SomeRandomGuy16? If a woman willingly undergoes something with a known miscarriage risk factor, why doesn't that count as murder (or manslaughter), but abortion does?
[editline]29th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33945009]What's your point? Tape worms are involuntary and aren't even human in first place. They have no right to life.[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously saying something that isn't human has no right to life? On the sole basis that it's not human?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
