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: 4
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You know, if your problem was with my sources from the beginning, you could have just SAID something. Then we wouldn't have had to go back and forth for several pages dancing around each other's points.




posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you. It's the only way I know how to be.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

...

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.

....

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.

...
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.



I have seen them with my own eyes, outside termination clinics in London, telling women going in that they were about to kill a person and that it was wrong. You may not judge women, but many (if not most) do, I have spoken to them myself.

Of course adoptions are expensive, raising a child is incredibly expensive too.... hence some women choose to have a termination instead of bringing a child in poverty. You choose not to adopt because it is expensive, they choose not to have a child because it is expensive.

And no, I am not stereotyping, it's the truth: when pro-lifers say 'It's about taking responsibility for having sex and dealing with the consequences' they are saying that 'women should not be sexually active if they are not ready for motherhood'. That is trying to control and regulate women's sexual lives.

You may be different, I don't know, but most of those I have met never showed an inch of empathy for what some of those girls were going through. I can assure you that the vast majority of women do not choose to have an abortion lightly.

EDIT: the above can also be a reply to luthier and Ketsuko.

edit on 15-7-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.


Hypocrisy - "the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel"

What I'm talking about is CLEARLY an example of the second half of the definition. So nice try.


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.


Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs: Ineffective, Unethical, and Poor Public Health
The Failures Of Abstinence-Only Education Illustrated In 2 Charts
Abstinence sex education doesn't work. It teaches lies to ill-informed virgins
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs
Study: Abstinence-Only Programs Don't Work


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.


Who cares about the reasons they are done? Isn't the point to reduce the number of abortions that are occurring regardless of the reasons they are sought out?


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.



Utter bull#!

Domestic vs. International Adoption


The difference in cost between international adoption and domestic adoption is a common misconception that many adoptive families share. Many mistakenly believe that international adoption costs far less than domestic adoption; however, this is not true.

Both types of adoption have similar total costs, typically ranging from around $25,000 to $50,000, but they both have their own unique costs.

For example, hopeful parents adopting domestically will not have to budget for a visa, unlike those adopting internationally. Likewise, parents adopting domestically may provide living expenses for the expectant mother, such as help with rent or utility payments, an expense that is not typically seen in international adoptions.


Though it is interesting that you'd opt to adopt internationally while at the same time demanding that expectant mothers don't get abortions (which means that, naturally, children put up for adoption would increase dramatically).



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

...

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.

....

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.

...
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.



I have seen them with my own eyes, outside termination clinics in London, telling women going in that they were about to kill a person and that it was wrong. You may not judge women, but many (if not most) do, I have spoken to them myself.

Of course adoptions are expensive, raising a child is incredibly expensive too.... hence some women choose to have a termination instead of bringing a child in poverty. You choose not to adopt because it is expensive, they choose not to have a child because it is expensive.

And no, I am not stereotyping, it's the truth: when pro-lifers say 'It's about taking responsibility for having sex and dealing with the consequences' they are saying that 'women should not be sexually active if they are not ready for motherhood'. That is trying to control and regulate women's sexual lives.

You may be different, I don't know, but most of those I have met never showed an inch of empathy for what some of those girls were going through. I can assure you that the vast majority of women do not choose to have an abortion lightly.

EDIT: the above can also be a reply to luthier and Ketsuko.


I can tell you I do feel for those girls and the people outside those clinics are not very "Christian" in many cases. The persuasion to not abort should be done with love and caring not scarring and judgement. I am an agnostic pro lifer. I have atheist friends who are pro lifers. Not the kimd that want it illegal..

There is a point when it is definitely morally murder. I am just for neuroscience, medical science to declare that (like it is now in a way).

There are also many extreme pro choices who want unrestricted abortions at any fetal age. These two sides control the debate while most people are moderate. At least until they are stereotyped and attacked with generalizations and anecdotal evidence.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hey, did you know that the execution of "the death penalty" actually costs MORE than keeping someone in prison for life?



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

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.


No, I think the thread is titled appropriately since the penultimate hypocritical position in the pro-life movement is to try to get abortions banned, which research shows doesn't reduce the amount of abortions that are performed.

While it is refreshing to finally see a pro-life person not want to administer the ban stick for once, your opinions DON'T appear to be the opinions of the majority of your movement. In fact, you sound more like a pro-choice person who is just against abortion.
edit on 15-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier


I can tell you I do feel for those girls and the people outside those clinics are not very "Christian" in many cases. The persuasion to not abort should be done with love and caring not scarring and judgement. I am an agnostic pro lifer. I have atheist friends who are pro lifers. Not the kimd that want it illegal..

There is a point when it is definitely morally murder. I am just for neuroscience, medical science to declare that (like it is now in a way).

There are also many extreme pro choices who want unrestricted abortions at any fetal age. These two sides control the debate while most people are moderate. At least until they are stereotyped and attacked with generalizations and anecdotal evidence.


Sorry to say but most were Christian (outside the clinics in London). But I agree there should be a foetal age limit, like in the UK.

Let me tell you something: I am a mother and until a couple of years ago I was pro-life too, until I started working in healthcare and spoke to many women and girls: you have no idea what others go through until they tell you. There is no black and white in life, and we all come with heavy baggage. We should never judge other people's decisions until we have walked in their shoes, as simple as that.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:23 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.


Totally agree. If we have no right to life, we have no rights to anything. But laws alone do not fix the problem. At best, laws are a deterrent. If our true concern is life, then we have to do more. We have to address all those reasons that make women feel abortion is their best/only option.


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.


Obviously, there would be adult supervision and instruction, as well as proper adult/child ratios, etc. But there is a very big difference between the maturity required to babysit and the maturity required to bear and raise children. Teenagers have been babysitting forever, without killing or maiming the kids in their charge. How is one to learn how to parent unless one learns about taking care of kids? And where better than in school? Kids don't come with a parents manual... Better education makes better parents at any age.


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...


Liability would be no greater or lesser than at any daycare, and could be mitigated with full disclosure and the proper disclaimers and liability waivers. Give teachers and students first crack at openings, with nominal charges to help fund the program.


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.


I think all of these could be factored in. I would also think it could be self-funding, since most of the overhead costs (building, utilities, etc) are already budgeted. It would be more about re-allocating assets (especially space.)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You have also noticed that abortion has become a hot topic recently. I had been wondering about the recent stir and its roots , but all I could come up with it is an effort concocted political.

Inflame a topic that divides the public so the politicians can pander and get votes. Even the recent PP video is over a year old so the timing of its release is in question. Media being in cahoots with politicians is a well-known fact so it isn't much of a mystery IMO.

Oh well, even though I know that I am being manipulated by some PTB to talk about it I still talk about it. It sucks being sheep.

..................

Anyway, since this issue has made a resurgence I have tried to look and talk about it in a different manner. Instead of just arguing for what I believe I have been asking questions of those that want to change the laws.

Some want rights to be granted to fetuses. To those people I ask, what rights? Is it constitutional rights? Personhood? At what point does the fetus get those rights?

Those are very important things to define legally especially pertaining to non-citizens residing in the US. Some are claiming life starts at conception so that would also imply that citizenship for those conceived in the US.

Basically, many have proposed changes to laws regarding personhood so I want to know if they have figured out the solutions for the problems those changes would create.

If they have solutions then we could move forward in the conversation if they don't then things are liable to remain stagnent.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originalof ly posted by: luthier

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.


No, I think the thread is titled appropriately since the penultimate hypocritical position in the pro-life movement is to try to get abortions banned, which research shows doesn't reduce the amount of abortions that are performed.

While it is refreshing to finally see a pro-life person not want to administer the ban stick for once, your opinions DON'T appear to be the opinions of the majority of your movement. In fact, you sound more like a pro-choice person who is just against abortion.


I suppose you could say that but not really. I am against abortion and would try my best to stop the from happening on a personal level. Not legally because I am a realist and have studied anthropology and realize infanticide happens and happened all the time for various reasons.

I also understand the pro life argument I just don't believe its reasonable to legislate morality and I am libertarian (left leaning).
I am trying to point out the leaders of the prochoice movement have also been extreme which you seem to ignore. I don't know if I need to link quotes or if you follow politics but there are a lot of mainstream pro choice politicians that want the restrictions in r v wade removed.

In order to have compromise you can't alienate your opponent and your title does so. Take it from a moderate pro lifer. Or don't. But don't say lets work together if you ignore my feelings and points of view.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: grimpachi
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You have also noticed that abortion has become a hot topic recently. I had been wondering about the recent stir and its roots , but all I could come up with it is an effort concocted political.

Inflame a topic that divides the public so the politicians can pander and get votes. Even the recent PP video is over a year old so the timing of its release is in question. Media being in cahoots with politicians is a well-known fact so it isn't much of a mystery IMO.

Oh well, even though I know that I am being manipulated by some PTB to talk about it I still talk about it. It sucks being sheep.

..................

Anyway, since this issue has made a resurgence I have tried to look and talk about it in a different manner. Instead of just arguing for what I believe I have been asking questions of those that want to change the laws.

Some want rights to be granted to fetuses. To those people I ask, what rights? Is it constitutional rights? Personhood? At what point does the fetus get those rights?

Those are very important things to define legally especially pertaining to non-citizens residing in the US. Some are claiming life starts at conception so that would also imply that citizenship for those conceived in the US.

Basically, many have proposed changes to laws regarding personhood so I want to know if they have figured out the solutions for the problems those changes would create.

If they have solutions then we could move forward in the conversation if they don't then things are liable to remain stagnent.



According to the constitution then yes children born here are citizens. That is the language you would need to amend the language .

Second you are right and about defining and I keep saying it over and over and over. Yet I get insulted over and over for being prolife but moderate. I get lumped in with nut bars at abortion clinics terrorizing woman because people are not careful with language. I don't lump pro choices in with nuts who think 8 month ok fetuses can be aborted for no reason other than convenience.

I would love to end this debate so we can work on the social problems that create the necessity to begin with which is the only way to stop abortions.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


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.


What?

We are talking about babysitters. What??!!!!!

I was entrusted as a kid to teenaged babysitters.....I was a teen-aged babysitter for LOTS of kids......I grew up to be a daycare provider myself, in my home....and later a teacher of parents.

My daughter worked as a daycare staff-member while in high school. She is one of the BEST qualified people I have ever known.
She's a scientist now, but when she was in high school she worked at a very progressive-minded daycare center in the 'burbs. She herself is hoping/planning to have kids when she is 30-ish.

So, dude. You need to



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You seem to be pretty reasonable.

It isn't very often that I can say that on these boards.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


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.


And it has been proven 100% that the 'abstinence only' program does NOT WORK.
Would you like sources?



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
I suppose you could say that but not really. I am against abortion and would try my best to stop the from happening on a personal level. Not legally because I am a realist and have studied anthropology and realize infanticide happens and happened all the time for various reasons.


That's why I said you sound like a pro-choice person who is just against abortion, but hey you are you and have your reasons for believing what you do. If you think that your reasoning makes you pro-life, who am I to argue?


I also understand the pro life argument I just don't believe its reasonable to legislate morality and I am libertarian (left leaning).


As a Libertarian, that's one of the reasons I don't agree with it.


I am trying to point out the leaders of the prochoice movement have also been extreme which you seem to ignore. I don't know if I need to link quotes or if you follow politics but there are a lot of mainstream pro choice politicians that want the restrictions in r v wade removed.


I'm not acknowledging the fringe ideas of the pro-choice movement because they aren't relevant to what I'm trying to accomplish here. Yes, there are people within the pro-choice movement who want to do extreme things with abortion, but at the least, they aren't being hypocritical with their beliefs. They honestly believe that abortion should be as open as possible and are trying to legislate accordingly. Their beliefs aren't conflicting with any sort of scientific research either because science still hasn't determined any point that a fetus becomes a human.

I really don't agree with those politicians, but like I said, they aren't relevant to the topic at hand.


In order to have compromise you can't alienate your opponent and your title does so. Take it from a moderate pro lifer. Or don't. But don't say lets work together if you ignore my feelings and points of view.


But I can't speak for everyone within the pro-choice movement. I can only speak for myself. I'm pretty sure that removing the restrictions on RvW and making late term abortions 100% legal isn't a mainstream pro-choice movement, and at the least it isn't something that -I- want.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Here it is anyway:


There is broad support for abstinence as a necessary and appropriate part of sexuality education. Controversy arises when abstinence is provided to adolescents as a sole choice and where health information on other choices is restricted or misrepresented.

Although abstinence is theoretically fully effective, in actual practice abstinence often fails to protect against pregnancy and STIs. Few Americans remain abstinent until marriage; many do not or cannot marry, and most initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual behaviors as adolescents. Although abstinence is a healthy behavioral option for teens, abstinence as a sole option for adolescents is scientifically and ethically problematic.

A recent emphasis on abstinence-only programs and policies appears to be undermining more comprehensive sexuality education and other government-sponsored programs.

We believe that abstinence-only education programs, as defined by federal funding requirements, are morally problematic, by withholding information and promoting questionable and inaccurate opinions. Abstinence-only programs threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life.


Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of US policies and programs (PDF Download Available). Available from: Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of US policies and programs [accessed Jul 15, 2015].
edit on 7/15/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: grimpachi

From what I've seen, many just propose changes to laws without actually ever taking into consideration the consequences of those actions. In fact, that is one of the points of this thread. To help show some of the pro-life crowd that inevitable results of some of their rhetoric and that things don't work out in reality like the'd like them to work out in their heads.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
And here's another one!
The Failures Of Abstinence-Only Education Illustrated In 2 Charts

FEB 20, 2014 9:30AM



The report, produced by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), notes that Mississippi has consistently had some of the worst sexual health indicators in the country.

The state has the second highest rate of teen pregnancies, the second highest rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections, and the seventh highest rate of HIV infections.


Proponents of abstinence-only programs typically claim that teaching kids medically accurate information about their bodies will convince them to start having more sex, assuming that young adults need to be protected from sexually explicit content that could corrupt their innocence. But Mississippi throws a wrench into that logic.

Even though teens have been shielded from what might be deemed “inappropriate” sex ed content, SIECUS found that kids in the Magnolia State are

actually having sex earlier and more frequently than the national average.

Predictably, they’re also much less likely to know how to avoid unintended pregnancies



EDIT:
Ah, I see Krazysh0t beat me to that one.
Still, it doesn't hurt to have extexts included. Because lots of people won't bother to even read the link headlines, let alone click on them.


edit on 7/15/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE, or control, teen hormones.

It just isn't going to happen (unless you lock them ALL in a cage somewhere). It's time to deal with it.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join