Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, sorry, but I am not wrong about my own opinions. Here's the thing. I am me. You are not me. I know why I oppose abortion. You don't get to tell me why I oppose abortion. I believe that when someone has an abortion, an innocent human being's life is terminated. Therefore I support banning elective abortion.
Do pro life people say women should be paid less than men? No. Do pro life people say that women should be banned from driving? No. Do pro life people say that women should have to wear certain clothes and not other clothes? No. Do pro life people try to say what women should be allowed to eat or drink? No. That's the fundamental flaw in the controlling women's bodies argument - these evil sexist control freaks who want to control women's bodies for some strange reason do not try to control anything else. That makes the idea that it is about controlling women's bodies ridiculous. The control freaks here are not the people who want to ban abortion. Killing human beings is illegal. Therefore abortion should be illegal. The control freaks in the situation are the pro-choice people who insist on telling the pro life people what we really want, what our true motivations are, and what we really think. That's trying to control other people. Making it illegal to kill other human beings is crime prevention, not controlling women's bodies.
I oppose eating meat. An innocent being's life is terminated. Meat should be illegal.
No bacon for you!!!
Deal?
So basically, only women have the right to choice? And we wonder why homicide is so high among pregnant women. I don't know if you realize this, but the "keep it in your pants" argument is the exact same argument used by people that oppose abortion.
No, sorry, but I am not wrong about my own opinions. Here's the thing. I am me. You are not me. I know why I oppose abortion. You don't get to tell me why I oppose abortion. I believe that when someone has an abortion, an innocent human being's life is terminated. Therefore I support banning elective abortion.
Do pro life people say women should be paid less than men? No. Do pro life people say that women should be banned from driving? No. Do pro life people say that women should have to wear certain clothes and not other clothes? No. Do pro life people try to say what women should be allowed to eat or drink? No. That's the fundamental flaw in the controlling women's bodies argument - these evil sexist control freaks who want to control women's bodies for some strange reason do not try to control anything else. That makes the idea that it is about controlling women's bodies ridiculous. The control freaks here are not the people who want to ban abortion. Killing human beings is illegal. Therefore abortion should be illegal. The control freaks in the situation are the pro-choice people who insist on telling the pro life people what we really want, what our true motivations are, and what we really think. That's trying to control other people. Making it illegal to kill other human beings is crime prevention, not controlling women's bodies.
Murder is illegal, killing human beings is not. If you we went by that line of thinking than state sponsored executions would also be illegal. Killing someone in the name of self defense would also be illegal. Anytime you present an argument that states that women are nothing more than incubators you are controlling someones body. I have also found that the vast majority of anti abortion people tend to come from the same stock that consistently votes against matters involving women's rights and equality.
No, more likely that you are just using typical liberal rhetoric to character assassinate your political opponents rather than deal with their real arguments. Calling people who disagree with their policy ideas some form of bigot is standard operating procedure for liberals.
Don't like immigration reform, it's because you hate Mexicans.
Don't like the welfare state, it's because you hate poor people.
Don't want to give out birth control without a copay, it's because you hate women.
Don't agree with man-caused global warming, it's because you're anti science.
Liberals do this all time. It means they don't have to address what the other side is actually saying. They just dismiss them as prejudiced.
You've already been told more than once that there was no epidemic crisis of millions upon millions of children being born into desperate circumstances prior to abortion being made legal. It is false logic to assume that if X number of abortions occur when abortion is legal, that X number of children will be born if abortions are not legal. That relies upon an assumption that people do not modify their behavior based on the law, and this is a manifestly false assumption. If that were the case, there would be no point in having a legal system at all. The fact that you have been told this, and yet continue on with your argument that pro life people are not motivated by a desire to save lives, suggests to me that you yourself are motivated by a desire to further a preconceived narrative that supports your own opinions regardless of available evidence to the contrary.
There is nothing to address in the opinions because the side coming from the right almost never offers up alternatives, which leads people to believe you are like that. "We can't stand people illegally entering America, however we won't make any effort to work to modernize immigration procedures or ensure people who have been here long term can have a path towards citizenships. "We don't like the welfare state so we will cut it to the bone but offer no help to make sure people can live without it." "We don't like paying for birth control because it's against our religious beliefs, even though nowhere in the bible does it say having sex outside of marriage is wrong." Maybe the reason we liberals use that argument all the time is because "If the shoe fits...".
Feminists claim to care about women, they claim to care about ALL women's rights and well-being, often times at the expense of men, but yet they support abortion. How can you truly care about women's rights if you support the violation of the Right to Life of other women? And the brutal murder of baby girls in the womb? That's definitely not within their well being is it? How would you like it if someone did that to you?
This is why the feminist movement has no credibility and why it should be completely ignored until they change their stance on abortion (and hating men). I'm all for women having equal pay and dissolving the glass ceiling, but you don't have to be a feminist to support those things, and I won't support the feminist movement because they support baby killing (abortion is a PC term). Plus I am a man so they never wanted my support anyway. I actually care more about women and their rights than they do as I want all baby girls to live, they do not.
I'm going to go out for some lunch, I will check back on this thread later.
pro choice is about individual choice. there are 3. a woman's reproductive life is no ones business but her own.
no woman should ever be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, labor and deliver, raise or give up a child to adoption against her will.
I said human being. Your deflection attempt was pathetic.
Understood. Your opinions count, but mine don't.
As far as I'm concerned, until it's born, it's not a human being, and not entitiled to the rights and privileges of one.
Abortion is another word for eugenics - it was all the rave in America back in the early 1900's, not that it's disappeared. In fact Hitler, Time Magazine's Man of the Year in the late 30's, was their boy to see it get done in Europe until he went rouge. Eugenics, genocide, infanticide, it's one on the same.
Just because something is not deemed a "crime" does not mean that it's right. This is the scary side of democracy - mob rule and mob decision - meaning if the majority thinks abortion, eugenics, genocide, infanticide is fine then it's fine.
Abortion is another word for eugenics - it was all the rave in America back in the early 1900's, not that it's disappeared. In fact Hitler, Time Magazine's Man of the Year in the late 30's, was their boy to see it get done in Europe until he went rouge. Eugenics, genocide, infanticide, it's one on the same.
Just because something is not deemed a "crime" does not mean that it's right. This is the scary side of democracy - mob rule and mob decision - meaning if the majority thinks abortion, eugenics, genocide, infanticide is fine then it's fine.
Godwin's Law.
Took you long enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And we wonder why homicide is so high among pregnant women. I don't know if you realize this, but the "keep it in your pants" argument is the exact same argument used by people that oppose abortion.
