Originally posted by sithsaber408
So now you or her has the right to decide who are the "right people" to care about?
I'm so glad you don't get it. Gives me something to do for five minutes.
Any "people" (you called the fetus a person, haha) should be cared for you dolt, ...... anything else is a prejudice.
Really? Prejudice against what? Should all people be cared for? Murders? Rapists? Everyone? It's quality of life that we respect and cherish, not just "life". Get it right, dolt.
And for Omega, those poor, helpless poverty stricken women would avoid the whole problem by not taking cock whenever they want to escape their dreary lives.
Ah, another sympathetic male. You're a pig. Apparently it's okay for a man to shove his cock whereever he sees fit but since the mother has the ability to become pregnant, she must abstain. And since contraception is hard to come by in poverty stricken situations, she must just not have any physical intimiacy so that you're idea of objecitifying her with your own personal idea of moral obligations can be fulfilled. Dolt.
Anti abortion=anti womans rights?
Yes. When you say that a woman MUST keep a child and give birth to it out of some misguided moral obligation, you're using her as an object or vehicle for a potential good that might be the baby. Or a potential evil. Or it might even die in labor and she suffered for nothing. Real nice. Yeah.
Pro-abortion=pro-genocide.
Ridiculous. Abortion is not genocide.
gen·o·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-sd)
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
Way to know your definitions.
which is the lesser of 2 evils?
The lesser of two evils is not forcing a woman to carry a child because you're an unsympathetic male prick.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
So now you or her has the right to decide who are the "right people" to care about?
Pretty much. Glad you're getting it.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Any "people" (you called the fetus a person, haha) should be cared for you dolt, ...... anything else is a prejudice.
Quite wrong, but that's never stopped you before champ.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
And for Omega, those poor, helpless poverty stricken women would avoid the whole problem by not taking cock whenever they want to escape their dreary lives.
Yeah. Damn those females for indulging in human experiences whenever they choose, damn them all to hell.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Anti abortion=anti womans rights?
Anti-a woman's right, yes.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Pro-abortion=pro-genocide.
Hahahaha.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
which is the lesser of 2 evils?
Pro-abortion, considering it's not genocide.
-AC
Originally posted by Wesker
Ah, another sympathetic male. You're a pig. Apparently it's okay for a man to shove his cock whereever he sees fit but since the mother has the ability to become pregnant, she must abstain. And since contraception is hard to come by in poverty stricken situations, she must just not have any physical intimiacy so that you're idea of objecitifying her with your own personal idea of moral obligations can be fulfilled. Dolt.
planned parenthood has FREE condems its as much the guys responsibility as the females with that one.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, cite a source which states that the Pro-Life movement began earlier than 1967. By the way, we are all still waiting for you to name the numerous Pro-Life organizations that do not believe life begins at conception.Moreover, the paragraph in question does not describe a Pro-Life view. The law does not determine at which point an abortion is illegal based on when the fetus is considered alive.
The law never denies that the fetus is alive, or that the fetus has a right to life.
The law determines at which point an abortion is illegal based on at which point the right of the mother to control what happens in and to her body infringes upon the right to life of the fetus.
Before this time, the law considers the right to life of the fetus to be infringing upon the right of the mother to control what happens in and to her body.
It has nothing to do with personhood, and everything to do with individual rights.
You are seriously asking me to provide evidence that the belief that the foetus has a right to live existed before 1967? Don't waste my time witn inanity; Pro-Life is a philisophical belief and has exoisted in most of recorded history. it just has a certain ane these days. And how in the HELL can you not know that there are plenty of Pro-Life advocates whose view is nothing to do with conception at all? Are you entirely ignorant? Like I say, the Pro-Life movement is riven by massive philisophical splits within itself. The idea that life begins at conception is almost entirely a religious one. A belief in Pro-Life need not be religious at all.
Thje second part of your post is gibberish. The lae decides the point that the woman cannot abort the foetus at the point where the baby is considered to be a potentially self-supporting organism. That is the law's definbitionf of personification- the foetus has rights after that point.
Syren asks why I say Pro-Choice people are Pro-Life? Easy. Because they nearly all believe in restriction of choice, which makes their nomenclature worthless.
Nearly all of you believe in laws that restrict a woman's 'right' to choose. Like I say, the only difference between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life is at what point in the pregnancy the legal bar comes.
Which in turn is down to the the abortion being not allowed on grounds of the rights of the FOETUS overriding the rights of the woman. There is no other basis for those laws; the procedure for late abortion is medically sound. If you support modern abortion laws, you are supportung the restirction of woman's choice, as nearly all of modern society does, and with good reason.
The essence that a foetus can have rights is the essence of the Pro-Life position. Hence, Pro-Choicers, who actually don't believe in open choice at all, are far closer to the Pro-Life position than they want to be.
The rampant hypocrisy shown by many in this thread is sickening. If you REALLY believe in open choice, then go support a position that allows a baby to be terminated thirty seconds before birth if the mother chooses to.
If you think that should be illegal, as just about every legal system and every person does, then to say that you support a woman's right to choose is a hypcritical lie, because you do in fact believe in a system where there is a point at which their choice is irrelevant.
Originally posted by shaber
No no, she was referring to when the foetus had actually been born. To kill an infant at this stage is legally 'infanticide' (Latin derivation apparent?)
Originally posted by Syren
I was referring to when the foetus had been born? Ok, I didn't know that, thanks for clarifying 🙄I think you may have read wrong, somewhere.
I will go ahead and say "GO ME!!!!" together with one or two of these "w00t" smileys.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Syren asks why I say Pro-Choice people are Pro-Life? Easy. Because they nearly all believe in restriction of choice, which makes their nomenclature worthless.Nearly all of you believe in laws that restrict a woman's 'right' to choose. Like I say, the only difference between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life is at what point in the pregnancy the legal bar comes.
This all stemmed from you debating with Adam PoE about what pro-life is and what it isn't. Him trying to prove that Makedde isn't pro-life, and she isn't, as it has been proven.
What you are suggesting is not pro-life. Your example suggests that people are pro-life if they disagree with an abortion at some point, that's not pro-life. That's anti-certain abortions.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The rampant hypocrisy shown by many in this thread is sickening. If you REALLY believe in open choice, then go support a position that allows a baby to be terminated thrity seconds before birth if the mother chooses to.
I do. Can't speak for anyone else though.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you think that should be illegal, as just about every legal system and every person does, then to say that you support a woman's right to choose is a hypcritical lie, because you do in fact believe in a system where there is a point at which their choice is irrelevant.
Not only is this a bigger collective assumption than I am prepared to digi-touch, but the point you've avoided is the fact that you tried to call all people pro-life off the back of "Nearly everyone is against abortion at some point." Which isn't pro-life.
You're pro-life if you're against abortion all the way. So I'll use you're logic against you, paraphrased:
"The rampant hypocrisy shown by many in this thread is sickening. If you REALLY believe in pro-life, then go support a position that doesn't allow a baby to be terminated regardless of anything."
If you believe in abortion to any degree, then you're not a bit pro-life, you're not pro-life at all.
-AC
Originally posted by Syren
Just a query, are you saying that everyone believes that once the foetus is alive, the woman no longer has a choice? Because I don't believe that. I may have read you wrong, however 😕
No, not everyone, but most. It is also what laws believe. Laws restirct women's choice, and Pro-Choice movements do not, in general, campaign for change to these laws.
It's because they are generally not really about choice at all, simply a different philisophical position about timing.
Very few people actially believe a baby thirty seconds before being born is any differnet, in the sense of being alive, than one thirty seconds after. So it is up to when you believe how far back you have to go in the pregnancy before it is.
"This all stemmed from you debating with Adam PoE about what pro-life is and what it isn't. Him trying to prove that Makedde isn't pro-life, and she isn't, as it has been proven.
What you are suggesting is not pro-life. Your example suggests that people are pro-life if they disagree with an abortion at some point, that's not pro-life. That's anti-certain abortions."
Again- Pro-Life is the belief that a foetus has a right to life.
Nearly everyone believes that, they just differ about at which point. You don't seem to, but that's because you have a rather monstrous view that no civilised country has laws agreeing with.
-
"You're pro-life if you're against abortion all the way."
Lie. Learn something about Pro-Life. Heck, just look it up on wiki if you want. Pro-Life is nowhere near that simple. The Consistent Life Ethic might belief life starts at conception, but LOTS of people who are Pro-Life do not.