It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The hypocrisy of the pro-life argument

page: 3
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

This is all a relatively decent response to the problem, but while I'm vehemently opposed to unnecessary laws, I think laws that are in place to protect human life--you know, like murder in all the degrees, manslaughter, etc.--have their place in a civilized society whose foundation claims to be that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Also, putting a daycare in a high school and having underage children work in it is a terrible idea--they're not even mentally mature enough to handle getting pregnant at that age, let alone be trusted to care for other peoples' children. Not the mention the potential for liability lawsuits, cost to run said daycare in systems that already lack funding for some fundamental services and classes--things like this cause what seems like a decent idea in the brainstorming session to be unfeasible and relatively bad in the real world.

Now, if the students who actually created these babies had to be a part of the daycare--and only them--and the daycare only housed students' babies, that might be different (and maybe that's what you meant). I assume this means that there would be full-time adult caretakers there at all times, too. Maybe make some of the welfare and WIC money the students would receive go directly to the daycare. Things like this could be okay, and might possibly work, but even then, it'd be iffy, because the majority of the additional cost would fall on the taxpayer--yet another burden on us for something that we didn't cause.




posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

If being pro-life, to you, is TRULY about the killing of a helpless human being, why do you think that banning abortion will cut such things down?


The same reason that abolishing the death penalty would save lives. I figured the logic was pretty sound, there...maybe you should explain how banning abortions would not reduce the amount of death for these helpless, unborn children. There are more than one-million abortions every year--how would banning the practice that results in these deaths not reduce the number of deaths from said practice?


I already showed why making abortions illegal wouldn't reduce the amount of abortions in the OP when I showed how the abortion rate is higher in countries where abortions are illegal. Clearly you didn't read it if you don't know why I'd be asking that question...

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people stop doing it... As has been shown through countless amounts of research, banning something doesn't make it go away or even reduce its occurrence. It just drives it underground and makes it unsafe.


Maybe it's just my ideals that seem to align with the libertarian idea that most things should be legal unless it harms another human being--nothing is much more harmful than killing.


Lol you call being pro-life Libertarian? Libertarians wouldn't be in the business of having the government presiding over the rights of a woman's body.


And since this is about hypocrisy, please don't try to argue that a developing fetus isn't a human being--science and logic say otherwise. (this is directed at others who may respond with that comment, not necessarily you)


I'd rather we stay focused on all the research and stats I used in the OP that you apparently ignored when you started responding to me.


Whoa. This poster explained themselves you need to address what they said about the fetus being alive and having rights. Not saying you are right or wrong but have to address the actual points.

If you hold the view a fetus is alive it has rights. I think its undeniable at some point the fetus has an understanding of feeling and response.

Some believe its from the start that's ok. Nobody actually knows what it all means. I would narrow down when it is undisputable to come to a compromise.

It is perfectly sound reasoning to believe a fetus is alive and has rights but, there is a reality of the matter abortions will happen anyway. I think its better to have a safe medical practice and come to a conclusion similar to the supreme court ruling on r v wade. But many pro choice political people take the pro choice to the extreme and want abortions after the 5 or 6 month period which to me just adds fire to the whole thing. Its as crazy as people bombing abortion clinics to save lives.
edit on 15-7-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Whoa. This poster explained themselves you need to address what she said about the fetus being alive and having rights. Not saying you are right or wrong but have to address the actual points.


Why? The poster hasn't addressed a single point from the OP yet and has delineated down the standard abortion debate topics. So why should -I- have to address this person's points when they get to ignore the very points the thread was formed for in the first place?


If you hold the view a fetus is alive it has rights. I think its undeniable at some point the fetus has an understanding of feeling and response.

Some believe its from the start that's ok. Nobody actually knows what it all means. I would narrow down when it is undisputable to come to a compromise.


There is no point where it is indisputable. Fetus', just like all natural things in the universe, develop gradually over time. There is never a definitive point where we can say, "THERE! That's where the fetus becomes human!" That's like declaring you can tell the official point when blue becomes green with a color shader or when a species becomes a new species in evolution.


It is perfectly sound reasoning to believe a fetus is alive and has rights but, there is a reality of the matter abortions will happen anyway. I think its better to have a safe medical practice and come to a conclusion similar to the supreme court ruling on r v wade. But many pro choice political people take the pro choice to the extreme and want abortions after the 5 or 6 month period which to me just adds fire to the whole thing. Its as crazy as people bombing abortion clinics to save lives.


This is strictly a conversation about abortions, not late-term abortions.
edit on 15-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Boadicea

This is all a relatively decent response to the problem, but while I'm vehemently opposed to unnecessary laws, I think laws that are in place to protect human life--you know, like murder in all the degrees, manslaughter, etc.--have their place in a civilized society whose foundation claims to be that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Also, putting a daycare in a high school and having underage children work in it is a terrible idea--they're not even mentally mature enough to handle getting pregnant at that age, let alone be trusted to care for other peoples' children. Not the mention the potential for liability lawsuits, cost to run said daycare in systems that already lack funding for some fundamental services and classes--things like this cause what seems like a decent idea in the brainstorming session to be unfeasible and relatively bad in the real world.

Now, if the students who actually created these babies had to be a part of the daycare--and only them--and the daycare only housed students' babies, that might be different (and maybe that's what you meant). I assume this means that there would be full-time adult caretakers there at all times, too. Maybe make some of the welfare and WIC money the students would receive go directly to the daycare. Things like this could be okay, and might possibly work, but even then, it'd be iffy, because the majority of the additional cost would fall on the taxpayer--yet another burden on us for something that we didn't cause.



But we are a civil society. Conservative idealism may work brain storming but not in the real world. Not taking care of society ends up costing more in the form of crime and nearly every industrialized world understands this. We should be worried about the spending programs that don't help society at all over civil society help.

I don't believe in welfare as we have it now but more in education and job training, however we are plenty a rich nation to not have to tax the public more for social programs but rather clean up the waste and cooperate welfare that cripples tax payers without offering any benefit.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier
Whoa. This poster explained themselves you need to address what she said about the fetus being alive and having rights. Not saying you are right or wrong but have to address the actual points.


Why? The poster hasn't addressed a single point from the OP yet and has delineated down the standard abortion debate topics. So why should -I- have to address this person's points when they get to ignore the very points the thread was formed for in the first place?


If you hold the view a fetus is alive it has rights. I think its undeniable at some point the fetus has an understanding of feeling and response.

Some believe its from the start that's ok. Nobody actually knows what it all means. I would narrow down when it is undisputable to come to a compromise.


There is no point where it is indisputable. Fetus', just like all natural things in the universe, develop gradually over time. There is never a definitive point where we can say, "THERE! That's where the fetus becomes human!" That's like declaring you can tell the official point when blue becomes green with a color shader or when a species becomes a new species in evolution.


It is perfectly sound reasoning to believe a fetus is alive and has rights but, there is a reality of the matter abortions will happen anyway. I think its better to have a safe medical practice and come to a conclusion similar to the supreme court ruling on r v wade. But many pro choice political people take the pro choice to the extreme and want abortions after the 5 or 6 month period which to me just adds fire to the whole thing. Its as crazy as people bombing abortion clinics to save lives.


This is strictly a conversation about abortions, not late-term abortions.


Late term abortions are abortions and the democratic party supports them and wants them to happen. You can't attack a general group of "pro lifers" and then control the debate with specifics and call it a valid debate. You have to address that pro choice movement also has unreasonable requests.

Also are you a dr.? Or biologist? What makes you an expert on fetal development. The supreme court ruled on fetal viability being that point. My worry for the pro choice crowd is that fetal viability will become 3 months with science and technology advances and the r v wade will be overturned with that argument causing more harm than good. Hence my drive to define when the fetus has feelings and thoughts. Surely neuroscience, biology, and healthcare can come up with a relative time frame.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It might have it's own unique DNA but it is not sentient.

It's like a house that's not fully built, no one lives in it. The zygote doesn't have anyone living "upstairs" in it. There's no spark of human consciousness in it. At that stage it's merely a potential human, not an actual human.

My view is that until there is a brainwave pattern or neural activity, it's nothing more than a growth of tissue being prepared to host the consciousness of a human. At some point that spark of human-ness becomes ignited inside the newly forming nervous system. At that time and from then on, yes -- I would agree it is murder.

Before that time? No, it's not murder because that which would make it a living, sentient being is not present.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
This is the core of what I see as most hypocritical in the "pro-life" agenda:

1. Abortion is murder.
2. Abortion when the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest or "poses a threat to the mother" is acceptable.

ERGO

3. Murder is acceptable in some circumstances approved by (the pro-lifer in question.)

If that's not "fascist" I don't know what is.

Abortion is not murder. A woman's body naturally aborts about half of all pregnancies. Until viability, the fetus is not a person, and is certainly not in the first few weeks of pregnancy.

So, who's more "evil" ... someone who advocates for murder "sometimes" or not?

Again,

/shudder


edit on 13Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:22:47 -050015p012015766 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Late term abortions are abortions and the democratic party supports them and wants them to happen. You can't attack a general group of "pro lifers" and then control the debate with specifics and call it a valid debate. You have to address that pro choice movement also has unreasonable requests.


First, I already addressed this when you brought it to begin with. Second, this isn't a huge deal to too many pro-choicers. I know -I- can live without late term abortions not being legal or heavily restricted.

Late term abortions - legal policy


Also are you a dr.? Or biologist? What makes you an expert on fetal development. The supreme court ruled on fetal viability being that point. My worry for the pro choice crowd is that fetal viability will become 3 months with science and technology advances and the r v wade will be overturned with that argument causing more harm than good. Hence my drive to define when the fetus has feelings and thoughts. Surely neuroscience, biology, and healthcare can come up with a relative time frame.


See here is the issue with your argument, you are SO fixated on late term abortions that you have completely missed the point of my thread. The point of my thread was to highlight the hypocrisies in the pro-life argument so that they can see the errors in their reasoning and HOPEFULLY come together with pro-choicers to pitch a solution that actually ACCOMPLISHES the goal of reducing abortions altogether and not just late term abortions.

This thread isn't meant to argue the merits of abortion. It's to get people to understand that their solution to ban abortion is a flawed one, even IF they are correct in their reasoning not to support abortions.
edit on 15-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Lol you call being pro-life Libertarian? Libertarians wouldn't be in the business of having the government presiding over the rights of a woman's body.


Nice try...my whole stance is that it's protecting life from being harmed by another, not that it takes away some supposed "right" for a woman to kill her own child, as long as it hasn't popped out of her vagina yet (or reached 20-24 weeks of gestation). You're really twisting my words into some sort of ideological pretzel--if wanting every human being to have a right to life, then I guess that makes me an ideologue. If you want people to be able to murder their own child while it's insider her body...that's your own opinion, I guess. But just keep in mind that a baby in gestation has their own body--it's not their mother's body, it's just attached by the umbilical chord for nutrients and oxygen temporarily. When you're gassing up your vehicle, your vehicle is not part of the gas pump just because there's a tube used to send fuel into it.

Yes, that's a lame analogy, but if you're going to act like a fetus isn't a separate human life, I'll use inanimate objects as an analogy, that way it's less personal and everyone can feel better about themselves and pretend we're not dealing with living things.


I'd rather we stay focused on all the research and stats I used in the OP that you apparently ignored when you started responding to me.


I didn't ignore anything, but I presented my stance overtly in my initial reply--I'm pro-life because of the argument that abortion robs a developing, living, separate human being of its right to life. All of the stuff in your OP is a non-issue in my argument.

As for ignoring the "facts" and links in your OP, I went to the one that you linked when claiming that countries with banned abortion have higher abortion rates, and I couldn't find anywhere in that article that it says that. Furthermore, I researched that site, and it has a heavy ideological bias on the "pro-choice" side of things, so fighting ideology with opposing ideology isn't the best method to prove your implied objectivity on the matter (or that one side is hypocritical and yours is not).



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Pro-life movement is not about saving babies, it's about regulating sex, women's sex! It's all about controlling women's sexual life and punishing them if they have 'unapproved' sex. If they wanted to save babies they would fight to give free contraception as it has been proven to cut the number of abortions by 75% (as said on this thread already).

What I can't stand is their hypocrisy, their judging women who want to have an abortion without even knowing the reasons behind it. If only they spoke to those women they would know that the vast majority of terminations have the same reason: the father won't take responsibility, they couldn't afford to give the child a good life, abuse and the baby will be born with serious defects/illness.

And if they really want to save lives, they would adopt all those million of kids in the world that have been abandoned or are orphans.. but that would mean they actually have to do something besides judging what women choose to do with their bodies.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It might have it's own unique DNA but it is not sentient.

It's like a house that's not fully built, no one lives in it. The zygote doesn't have anyone living "upstairs" in it. There's no spark of human consciousness in it. At that stage it's merely a potential human, not an actual human.

My view is that until there is a brainwave pattern or neural activity, it's nothing more than a growth of tissue being prepared to host the consciousness of a human. At some point that spark of human-ness becomes ignited inside the newly forming nervous system. At that time and from then on, yes -- I would agree it is murder.

Before that time? No, it's not murder because that which would make it a living, sentient being is not present.


While I respect that viewpoint (as I can't confirm nor deny its veracity), it's not my viewpoint. I don't think consciousness is what makes us humans--I leave that up to DNA--but I do think consciousness is what makes us aware. But awareness is not the definition of humanity.

Keep in mind that it appears, as far as the science I've read on the topic, that it is the DNA which tells the zygote to grow into a human capable of having consciousness. It's not the mother, nor the father, nor society, nor, IMO, a god. The DNA dictates everything that happens to that developing human being, not consciousness--at least, not while it's in the womb.

Once it's born, that's a different story--one about which we're not discussing. But for the record, I don't dismiss your viewpoint at all, mine just differs in the detail as to when a developing baby should be considered human, I guess.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier
Late term abortions are abortions and the democratic party supports them and wants them to happen. You can't attack a general group of "pro lifers" and then control the debate with specifics and call it a valid debate. You have to address that pro choice movement also has unreasonable requests.


First, I already addressed this when you brought it to begin with. Second, this isn't a huge deal to too many pro-choicers. I know -I- can live without late term abortions not being legal or heavily restricted.

Late term abortions - legal policy


Also are you a dr.? Or biologist? What makes you an expert on fetal development. The supreme court ruled on fetal viability being that point. My worry for the pro choice crowd is that fetal viability will become 3 months with science and technology advances and the r v wade will be overturned with that argument causing more harm than good. Hence my drive to define when the fetus has feelings and thoughts. Surely neuroscience, biology, and healthcare can come up with a relative time frame.


See here is the issue with your argument, you are SO fixated on late term abortions that you have completely missed the point of my thread. The point of my thread was to highlight the hypocrisies in the pro-life argument so that they can see the errors in their reasoning and HOPEFULLY come together with pro-choicers to pitch a solution that actually ACCOMPLISHES the goal of reducing abortions altogether and not just late term abortions.

This thread isn't meant to argue the merits of abortion. It's to get people to understand that their solution to ban abortion is a flawed one, even IF they are correct in their reasoning not to support abortions.


You are failing to see the point. I am pro life. I just am reasonable about it and understand the arguments and the real life situations. However, I would personally do every bit of persuasion in a non medical or rape situation to convince a mother other wise.

You lumped me in with all pro lifers. I explained some even very high ranking politicians on the pro choice side are unreasonable and want late term abortions. These are the issues that make all the moderate people lost in this debate.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Nice try...my whole stance is that it's protecting life from being harmed by another, not that it takes away some supposed "right" for a woman to kill her own child, as long as it hasn't popped out of her vagina yet (or reached 20-24 weeks of gestation). You're really twisting my words into some sort of ideological pretzel--if wanting every human being to have a right to life, then I guess that makes me an ideologue. If you want people to be able to murder their own child while it's insider her body...that's your own opinion, I guess. But just keep in mind that a baby in gestation has their own body--it's not their mother's body, it's just attached by the umbilical chord for nutrients and oxygen temporarily. When you're gassing up your vehicle, your vehicle is not part of the gas pump just because there's a tube used to send fuel into it.


All the words in the world aren't going to save you from the fact that a Libertarian wouldn't want the government dictating a woman's body rights, regardless of whatever perceived rights the fetus has or doesn't have.


Yes, that's a lame analogy, but if you're going to act like a fetus isn't a separate human life, I'll use inanimate objects as an analogy, that way it's less personal and everyone can feel better about themselves and pretend we're not dealing with living things.


How about focusing on my question about banning abortions like was in my thread to begin with? Why do you think that banning abortions is going to reduce abortion rates? Are you going to even ATTEMPT to refute the links in the OP or are you just insistent on dragging me into another abortion morality debate?


I didn't ignore anything, but I presented my stance overtly in my initial reply--I'm pro-life because of the argument that abortion robs a developing, living, separate human being of its right to life. All of the stuff in your OP is a non-issue in my argument.

As for ignoring the "facts" and links in your OP, I went to the one that you linked when claiming that countries with banned abortion have higher abortion rates, and I couldn't find anywhere in that article that it says that. Furthermore, I researched that site, and it has a heavy ideological bias on the "pro-choice" side of things, so fighting ideology with opposing ideology isn't the best method to prove your implied objectivity on the matter (or that one side is hypocritical and yours is not).


Source material not good enough?
Huff Po
NY Times
ABC News Baltimore
Pro-Life Source (USCatholic.org)
BBC Source

All those news sources not good enough? Here's the study in question.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Pro-life movement is not about saving babies, it's about regulating sex, women's sex!


That's stereotyping poppycock, and you know it! Don't lump everyone into the single, harshest group that might share a similar viewpoint. That's BS at its finest.


What I can't stand is their hypocrisy, their judging women who want to have an abortion without even knowing the reasons behind it. If only they spoke to those women they would know that the vast majority of terminations have the same reason: the father won't take responsibility, they couldn't afford to give the child a good life, abuse and the baby will be born with serious defects/illness.


You assume that pro-lifers all judge women for abortions--I don't judge the women, I judge the act that takes a human life. I fully understand that there are often good, necessary reasons for abortions to take place, but your claim about a "vast majority" happening for reasons you stated needs a citation big time.


And if they really want to save lives, they would adopt all those million of kids in the world that have been abandoned or are orphans.. but that would mean they actually have to do something besides judging what women choose to do with their bodies.


Strawman argument. Do you know how expensive it is to adopt children? I do, because my wife and I looked into it seriously and decided we couldn't afford to do it, so we had a biological baby instead.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I didn't lump you in with anything. I'm just trying to get around your bizarre fascination with late term abortions. I've already answered your question twice about them and the thread wasn't even about them to begin with. If you are a reasonable pro-lifer, then how about helping me to explain these hypocrisies to other pro-lifers so that us pro-choicers who are also against abortion personally can work with you guys to actually REDUCE abortions instead of creating legal platitudes that only make things worse?
edit on 15-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ummm, hypocrisy is telling others not to do something you proceed to do at every turn.

So, a pro-life hypocrite would be one who has lots of abortions while telling people not to do it themselves or trying to prevent them having abortions.

Or simply put - Do as I say, not as I do.

Second, abstinence only. I'm not sure where people get the idea that abstinence does not teach you about things like birth control. There are plenty of abstinence curriculums of all kinds. The best ones do teach about birth control, STDs and pregnancy and hammer home the point that the only 100% effective way to avoid any consequences of sex is abstinence.

Maybe it's because those of us who dislike abortion understand that most abortions are done out of convenience and abortion murders another human being, one who has a right to life, same as you and me. It certainly isn't their fault that momma and daddy were too dumb to figure out what the inevitable and eventual consequences of sex are and someone taught them safe sex which turns out to not really be all that safe.

Actual legitimate abortions are about as common as gays, and by that I mean less than 5% of the number of abortions carried out annually. Those are PP's own numbers.

Do you know why US couples are adopting overseas? Because the US government makes it darn hard to adopt. It's not anyone's fault ... except maybe liberals and like busybodies that the US government makes it so hard to access our own children at need. And having heard the stories of a couple of friends, one who wanted to adopt or at least foster and finally opted to open a daycare (cheaper with less government intrusion and red tape which should tell you something) and one couple who did adopt twice, if my husband and I adopted, we'd go overseas too - those governments are far less picky about it. And we'd prefer to adopt a US child.

So blame the US government system there, not the people of the US.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
All the words in the world aren't going to save you from the fact that a Libertarian wouldn't want the government dictating a woman's body rights, regardless of whatever perceived rights the fetus has or doesn't have.


Save the lesson--I know what the Libertarian Party's stance on abortion is, and I disagree with it because I think that it puts the human life second, and I don't think that's the proper order. Plus, I already stated that a developing fetus isn't the woman's body, it's connected to the woman's body temporarily. That's a big difference.



How about focusing on my question about banning abortions like was in my thread to begin with? Why do you think that banning abortions is going to reduce abortion rates? Are you going to even ATTEMPT to refute the links in the OP or are you just insistent on dragging me into another abortion morality debate?


I'm not dragging you into anything--you keep responding to me of your own free will.

I can't refute the link you provided because it doesn't state the information that you claimed. Until you can prove to me that nations with banned abortion have higher abortion rates, I don't feel that refuting a lack of information is pertinent to my time or energy...plus, I have to leave in a couple minutes anyhow.


Source material not good enough?
Huff Po
NY Times
ABC News Baltimore
Pro-Life Source (USCatholic.org)
BBC Source

All those news sources not good enough? Here's the study in question.


But, now that you provided something of substance, I'll take a look at it and I'll come back to the conversation probably tomorrow, as I'm busy the rest of the day.

Take care.
edit on 15-7-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Pro-life movement is not about saving babies, it's about regulating sex, women's sex! It's all about controlling women's sexual life and punishing them if they have 'unapproved' sex. If they wanted to save babies they would fight to give free contraception as it has been proven to cut the number of abortions by 75% (as said on this thread already).

What I can't stand is their hypocrisy, their judging women who want to have an abortion without even knowing the reasons behind it. If only they spoke to those women they would know that the vast majority of terminations have the same reason: the father won't take responsibility, they couldn't afford to give the child a good life, abuse and the baby will be born with serious defects/illness.

And if they really want to save lives, they would adopt all those million of kids in the world that have been abandoned or are orphans.. but that would mean they actually have to do something besides judging what women choose to do with their bodies.


The pro choice movement is all about killing 6-9 month old fetuses and murdering sentient beings. Hows that for an equally ridiculous statement. Maybe you are confused by the media propaganda around the issue.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Pro-life movement is not about saving babies, it's about regulating sex, women's sex! It's all about controlling women's sexual life and punishing them if they have 'unapproved' sex. If they wanted to save babies they would fight to give free contraception as it has been proven to cut the number of abortions by 75% (as said on this thread already).

What I can't stand is their hypocrisy, their judging women who want to have an abortion without even knowing the reasons behind it. If only they spoke to those women they would know that the vast majority of terminations have the same reason: the father won't take responsibility, they couldn't afford to give the child a good life, abuse and the baby will be born with serious defects/illness.

And if they really want to save lives, they would adopt all those million of kids in the world that have been abandoned or are orphans.. but that would mean they actually have to do something besides judging what women choose to do with their bodies.


Really?

I don't want to stop you from having sex. I want you to be responsible about it.

And if you can't afford to give the child a good life and you are with someone who won't take responsibility ... then why are you taking the chance?

If you want to get your rocks off, there are plenty of solid, battery powered options, and he has a hand for his use to be blunt.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

I didn't lump you in with anything. I'm just trying to get around your bizarre fascination with late term abortions. I've already answered your question twice about them and the thread wasn't even about them to begin with. If you are a reasonable pro-lifer, then how about helping me to explain these hypocrisies to other pro-lifers so that us pro-choicers who are also against abortion personally can work with you guys to actually REDUCE abortions instead of creating legal platitudes that only make things worse?


Lets do it! Start by being careful with you language. Change the title of the OP to why do so many pro lifers or the hypocrisy of some pro lifers.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join