Life only has the value others place on it....for instance, when the US goes to war it devalues lots of lives. When Anti-Choicers force women to give birth like cattle they devalue the women's life.
No one forces a woman to have sex (except rape) or not use protection. Like I said, there is no agreement so it should be left to the doctor and patient but both sides want political answers to force their own opinion on others.
If you give the fetus the right to use another's body to sustain their life or allow them to harm another then you are NOT protecting women , you are taking away their EQUAL rights....YOU want to give the fetus MORE rights than women have.
You proved zero sexism, only thing you did was clarify that the unborn are roughly 50/50 male female. Go you. You added your own little opinion, which is all it is, as it certainly is not fact that Pro-Life believe all women should think alike and be treated like cattle. Very nice
Negative Fox. Protecting the unborn is not giving them more rights then the woman. It is giving them the same right to protections that the woman has. She still has the right to medical treatments, she even would still have the right to terminate to protect her life. The argument about using another's body to sustain their life I can see as a legit argument, if abortions are never allowed to be restricted. In fact even today they are allowed to be restricted and even banned at a certain point with exceptions for rape incest and danger to the mother.
The 50/50 thing was brought up by a poster who actually thought it had something to do with abortion....try to follow along....
You try to follow along. I was that poster. I included as part of the argument about being anti woman. Being pro-life has zero to do with being anti-woman. Pro-choice will try to claim a war on women, but it's getting old and people are realizing more and more that there is no war on women
Oh, that was you who thought that since half the fetuses are female it has something (who knows what) to do with abortion which of course it doesn't.... "people" ? you can't speak for anyone but yourself... YUP! When an attempt is made to take away YOUR rights I'm sure YOU will see it as a war...but now it's ONLY women's rights so you don't care....
I can speak for everyone who knows the war on women is false, nice try about making it about me though. And there you go with your anti woman nonsense. Stick to facts. Beat your chest that Pro-Life are trying to take away women's rights all you want. Nothing an be further from the truth. Yes when attempts to twist the Constitution are made I will speak out against it as anyone would.
I apologize, I should have qualified that statement. I meant that I don't think ALL pro-lifers are anti-women. I'm trying to steer away from the arguments from those kind of people and focus in on those who view the topic like SteveJa. Yes, people who vilify women as the problem because they're sluts are clearly idiots to me and there's no point in debating those people because they attack pro choicers by using ad hominem fallacies. Although, I do believe it is a women's rights issue so this is where anti choicers come in and shift the conversation by attacking women. Those people are truly sexist and that's when the argument shifts into a feminist debate. Then it gets difficult to argue protecting a woman's life while simultaneously not advocating for the unborn child. So, to me, keeping it about choices of the individual help further the pro choice stance here (mainly because this forum has so many blatantly sexist people who don't understand feminist criticism).
I've always viewed abortion as a Constitutional issue in the end. Yes I have my feelings and my stance has been well written here, even twisted by some. Ultimately I argue that abortion is a 10th amendment issue, not a 14th amendment. Would I like to see most abortions end? Certainly, I think a vast majority want that. I'm probably on the minority side of pro-life in that I support early sex education and access to birth control. As I stated in another thread, lately I've been debating with myself if government should be involved at all in abortion. That's the libertarian in me that generally dislikes government getting involved in the personal lives of others. I also argue for original intent on amendments, but that is a different topic.
It probably wouldn't be if the anti-aborts would engage in rational thought. Irrational begets irrational. Why should killing a single human cell be illegal ?
As a constitution loving fiscal conservative (more libertarian now as there is no longer much conservative about the GOP) I strongly disagree. The constitution is about "We the People". We the people = citizens. At the time, back in the day, slaves were not included in that definition. The idea that a single human cell at conception, or any other stage of pregnancy for that matter, was included in the definition of "we the people" is silliness.
I'm arguing that abortion is a 10th amendment issue, not a 14th, not whether, or not the unborn is a citizen. I do argue that the unborn is a human, not just human, deserving of protections. I also argue that the unborn does indeed fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government and the state that the woman resides.
I disagree with the idea that it is a 10 th amendment issue. This is a Declaration of Independence issue. The legitimate power of Government - Period- extends only to acts which are injurious to others. The DOI puts individual rights and freedoms "Above" the legitimate authority of Government ... Period. The question then is one of whether or not the fetus is a "citizen" which is a Federal Issue. If the fetus is not a citizen then the Government (Federal/State/Municipal) has no legitimate authority to mess with the individual rights and freedom of a woman to her own body. The only way for the Government to then make such a law, a law outside its legitimate purview, is to appeal to change the "Social Contract" ... the contract between the Gov't and "We the People" by which the Govt is granted authority. A change to this contract requires not 50+1. The bar is "overwhelming Majority". This is to prevent what is termed in Republicanism as "Tyranny of the Majority" ... to prevent some group from getting power and messing with individual rights and freedoms. Unfortunately the Founders did not set in stone what that number is.. Call it 80-85% but it would be at least 2/3rds. Good luck getting 80% or even 66% of "We the People" agreeing to restriction of individual right and freedoms in relation to a woman's right to choose.
