Just put the money in the bag and hand it over real slow like... or the fetus GETS IT

Is that really an argument that pro-choicers want to be associated with?

It often goes something like this: "Well, conservatives won't allow for the killing of a fetus, but then after the baby is born, they don't want to give up their own hard-earned money to feed, clothe, and buy it medical treatment either! Hypocrites!!"

This is supposed to expose some sort of hypocrisy of conservatives, though I'm not sure how the Liberal actually goes about articulating this hypocrisy. Most people are against killing and most people don't like to have their money taken away. So I see no inconsistency.

I can understand why pro-choicers might be pro-choice, given all the propaganda about dehumanization and wars on women, and a legitimate preference for personal autonomy. I also understand that they are not being hypocritical when they also want money to be taken from working people and given to people who do not contribute. In both cases, they are ignoring any idea of personal responsibility. These are perfectly logically consistent positions to hold. Blame society for your pregnancy, so society can't get mad over killing the fetus. Blame society for your hardships, so society owes you a living. Blame and take. Makes perfect sense internally.

What I don't understand is why many see some logical inconsistency in the fact that conservatives neither want to allow for the killing of a fetus nor pay for the baby's needs after it is born. Both of these notions stem from a belief in the concept of personal responsibility. There is no hypocrisy involved in this. If anyone disagrees, please articulate the hypocrisy you see in the conservative belief system.

 

Actually, that sounds a bit contradictory in itself. On the one hand, you say she "(has) no means to support a child" on the other, you reference the existence of the public dole, which by definition, allows her the means to support the child in any event.

Little doubt the kid will grow up to be pure crap with parents like these, I agree with you to some extent. I just don't think it justifies killing the kid before he is born. Still no hint of an articulation of conservative hypocrisy.

Of course we don't want to have to pay for someone else's kids. Why would anyone want that? Take responsibility for your own stuff.

And we also don't want the fetuses to be killed. Take responsibility for your sex and pregnancy.

On the one hand, conservatives believe that you are killing an innocent human life with an abortion. This is an unfair attack against an innocent person, perfectly consistent with the other hand, where we believe that people should be able to spend their hard earned money however they want. To deny them this right because other people aren't working so hard is yet another unfair attack against an innocent person.

So where is the inconsistency? Don't harm an innocent person. Take care of yourself. What hypocrisy?

 

I am adamantly pro-choice, hell, I don't even mine being called pro-abortion. But I always thought that argument from the pro-choice crowd was a poor one and the OP does a good job of pointing out why.

 

There are far more arguments surrounding abortion than just the bi-partisan bullcrap presented in the OP.

 

It's as simple as this. If you want state control of women's reproduction because, "the precious vulnerable little babies," and then you deny health insurance and state assistance for them because suddenly they are not your concern ANYMORE..that's hypocrisy.

Secondly, why do conservatives seem to think they pay all the taxes? I pay taxes and right now, a lot of tax dollars are funding the legislation and enforcement of the Republican war on women. Wahhh, I don't want to pay for that!

 

Really good post but....when did you become prolife? Or are you just arguing our fight?

 

Maybe he got bored and decided to play the Devil's Advocate? I thought about doing that once but I don't think I could pull it off very well.

 

I believe the argument stems from a lack of understanding of their opponents' positions. People simply won't accept that the fundamental aspect of modern conservatism is personal responsibility. I believe that my experiences have demonstrated for me that people are largely responsible for their own predicaments in life. I have seen people rise above hard times on their own. I have seen people fall onto hard times on their own, through poor decision making, laziness, or undue arrogance. Drug use is also far more rampant and more often a cause of poverty than Liberals want to admit.

I truly understand the desire for personal autonomy, and when I field an argument which views abortion solely on those grounds, it is difficult to counter along the same lines. But I know people can't be serious when they refer to the fetus as something like a parasite, or something using the mother's body unfairly. That is not what's going on and they know it. It shows a purposeful ignorance of how pregnancy happens and the selfish reasons a mother usually wants to abort. Just like they feign ignorance at the level of drug use by those living in so-called poverty. (They are not hungry and can afford drugs so is poverty really all that bad these days?)

To the point, pro-choicers who use the OP really need to expand their horizons and try better to understand the opposing viewpoint. Anyone who can not honestly and accurately articulate the views of his opponent really doesn't have any views of his own. You may find that you agree with the other side more, if you actually knew what the other side believed. Not knowing and nevertheless wanting to debate with them and even hurl insults towards them doesn't make any rational sense. You should know what they believe so that you can better define what you believe and how/why you are different.

 

The "war on women" is yet another fanciful misinterpretation of the opponents' views. Plain as day propaganda that doesn't require much intellect to see through, yet Liberals, who I know to be some of the most intelligent, open-minded people on Earth, follow right along with it. Is that what religion does to an otherwise thoughtful, caring human being?

Opposing the killing of an innocent fetus does not amount to a war on women. Surely you see that the abortion issue is a tough one. And that potential lives are at stake in addition to personal autonomy. Is it really going to war with women to prefer to support the potential lives? Are our differences really so great in this instance that it can be reasonably called going to war with women?

Absurdities and it is obvious to me that you have some personal vendetta reason to be a Liberal and are not there because you are thoughtful or open-minded, as many Liberals are (although generally uneducated about economics and sheltered from the realities of a life in U.S. poverty).

 

I'm an anti-abortion atheist. So you may have seen posts by me that were critical of religions on the Religion forum. I'm not sure if I have ever been pro-choice at this forum, but it is possible. I was pro-choice years ago, although abortion has always been a difficult issue for me, even during my youthful, carefree Liberal days. Though I don't believe in religion, I recognize that Christianity for instance, despite certain flaws, has been responsible for great good in the world and in our society in particular. Furthermore, I have come to realize that there has been no worse a destructive force in our society in modern times than what I consider to be the religion of Liberalism. I was charmed into Liberalism by my anti-Christian sentiment which I carried following my de-conversion from the Christian faith. I accepted many things that Liberals believed on faith alone. The faith that we were smarter than everyone else because we figured out the folly of religious belief. Many current Liberals are probably in that same boat, convinced that they are more intelligent than conservatives and often pointing to religious belief as the evidence. I can't tell you how many completely secular political debates in which I have participated where I have been criticized for being Christian. Or my opponent would post something, the underlying tones of which seemed to make the assumption that I am Christian. And I'm an atheist. I have found that Liberals often get stuck in a debate if they don't have Christian bashing to turn to. I have found that Liberals will often use the alleged liberalism of Jesus as an argument... even though neither of us believe in Jesus.

I suspect those who turn to such arguments expose themselves as being anti-Christian Liberals, Liberals who only accept the Liberal way because they don't adhere to any other religious beliefs. Liberalism fills that void for them, as it did for me for several years, while assuring them that religion is stupid and that only ignorant people join religions. These people can be educated and turned. Economics would be the most important subject to study (for anyone in the world), but economics is so boring that I believe seeing the complete lack of respect for human life evident in the abortion debate from Liberals is the best way to cause the tapestry to unravel. Once they see that they have been duped into accepting something so egregious, mostly because they are convinced religion is the ONLY argument against abortion, maybe it will only take a little more time and study to break the hold Liberalism has on their brains.

 

That all might sound reasonable to anyone who isn't aware of one basic fact, and that is no "potential lives" are saved by the mountains of legislation being passed by the states. Evidence from studies and statistics from other countries show overwhelmingly that criminalization of abortion does not reduce the rate, and in fact, increases the rate of maternal death. Furthermore, mandatory waiting periods and invasive vaginal ultrasounds do not work to change women's minds (as if the state should be passing laws to discourage women from acting on their constitutional rights) but they are insulting and degrading to women.

It is obvious to me that you are confused about which side has some personal vendetta. In 2011, there were nearly ***1,000*** bills in state legislatures restricting women's rights to legal abortion services. That's not a war "with" women, it's a war "on" women.

*As taught by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh et al. That's true.

 

I can't think of any laws which actually prevent the crime they are designed to legislate against. Crime is rampant in all of its forms, despite our laws. This does not move me to support anarchy.

Once again, we see that the pro-choice arguments can be used just as reasonably to support the legalization of virtually anything. Crime X still occurs in spite of Law X. Law X should be repealed and Crime X should be illegal. You can put anything in the variables to justify making it legal.

Furthermore, passing laws to try to prevent abortion is not a war on women. To even consider that notion, I would have to believe that getting abortions is a part of most women's everyday lives. It's not. That's so silly and really reveals what we are dealing with on the other side of this debate: total Liberal brainwashing in many cases.

Call it a "War on women" instead of just telling the truth: they disagree with you on abortion. It really is an absolute lie and you should be ashamed for spreading it.

 

All well and good if the required methods were in place to allow all people to improve their situation .. they are not, and even if they were the natural laws involved would always mean a poorer class of people, there can never be a utopia where all people are living outside of poverty, economics will not allow that to happen.

There are simply not enough jobs in the country to employ all capable people of a working age, nor can there ever be .. as to people bettering themselves - education costs money and even if you are one of the lucky ones who manages to get that education when faced with the job market you are just one of many trying to get a job . .I know I've been there, unemployed for two years despite having various qualifications and experience, I applied for over 500 jobs in that time resulting in 25 interviews ,,ok in the end I did get a job .. but, had I been a woman who became unintentionally pregnant in a pro-life world I would not have been able to seek employment to place myself in a better position to care for a new child in the future, thus not only would the pregnancy and birth be unwanted it would also place me in a position of prolonged poverty with no recourse to escape it.

The days of the stay at home mother have long gone (unless you are one of the top earners) most families require both sets of parents to be working in order to just maintain a decent standard of living and even then there are many who still fall below the poverty line .. In the UK 60% of the people who receive some sort of government welfare are in full time employment, many say the answer is to have a living wage . .all well and good, however a living wage will only result in an increase in prices to cover the increase in wages, and so the cycle starts again.

If you take away welfare what is the alternative .. people homeless and starving to death?

 

Wait just a minute there...You HAVE anarchy if the laws you passed don't have a deterrent effect. And there absolutely NO reason to have the law if it isn't a deterrent. We hope that anti-murder and anti-theft laws are deterring criminals, but those laws also give us a means of punishment for those who do break the laws. When the punishment is swift and sure, the laws ARE a deterrent. And that is the weakness with anti-abortion laws. First of all, if women do not agree with law, and believe male legislatures don't have a right to regulate their bodies, they have no motivation to obey the laws. It is impossible to enforce anti-abortion laws because you cannot catch and prosecute women having abortions, so you will always be lacking sure and swift punishment.

Now, women don't have to get an abortion every day to be affected by one or the lack of one every day for the rest of her life. Furthermore, the war on women isn't limited to abortion, it includes access to contraception and other health care that is being cut drastically by those with a vendetta against Planned Parenthood.

Disagreement isn't necessarily war. Generally some punitive action is taken for one side to feel a war is occurring. You should be ashamed for attempting to minimize the affects on women from those punitive actions.

 

Ander's stats clearly show that banning abortions reduces abortion rates.

 

I have never considered it a war on women per se, I see it more as a conflict of rights .. the fundamental question for me is when do the rights of one person over rule the rights of another, for the pro-lifer it is the fetus, for the pro-choicer it is the woman.

I have always maintained that pro-lifers and pro-choicers both have the same goal and that is to, at least, reduce abortions .. the difference is on how to achieve that goal.

Pro-lifers maintain it can be done through legislation and a return to a type of "sex is dirty" outside of marriage ideology .. both of which, there is ample evidence to show, do not work.

Pro-choicers maintain it can be done through comprehensive sex education and freely available contraception both of which have ample evidence to show that they do work.

It is one of the things that never fails to amaze me, why most pro-lifers are against sex education and certain contraception... I can find no practical reasoning behind it, surely the goal is to stop unintended pregnancies occurring so that abortion in almost all circumstances is moot .. Actually I do know one reasoning behind it, not a practical one though.. Religious beliefs.

 

Since this retort doesn't apply to anything I said, IOW off-topic, I'm gonna guess you have a supply of cut-and-paste quotes ready to go for the times when you don't know how to answer. Or maybe you didn't read it at all, and remember you promised me you would read the whole quote now.

Now, back to the topic..
Point 1, anti-abortion laws are ineffective because they cannot be enforced.
and Point 2, punitive actions taken by the right-wing segment of society have amounted to a War on Women, and it's hurting women.

Do you have anything to add to the topic?

 

That all depends on how you interpret things (from a pro-choice worldview, or from a pro-life worldview.) Why would you expect me, a pro-lifer, to agree with that statement? Why would you expect a pro-lifer to believe that banning abortions somehow hurts women? Pro-lifers (such as me!) don't even believe that abortion is a woman's "right".

 

Once again, you didn't read the post. Punitive actions taken against Planned Parenthood cause the loss of health care services to women that include access to reduced cost birth control and education on how to use it, breast exams, pregnancy tests, fertility treatments, even some services for men. Abortion amounts to 3% of PP services. The other 97% have nothing to do with abortion. I would expect you, even as a pro-lifer, to support low cost health care for women who need it. Especially, as a pro-lifer, you should support the distribution of birth control.

 

WAIT, is abortion a crime? It isn't, actually! Abortion is a constitutionally protected procedure, as it should be, since every pregnancy is a risk to a woman's health and life. Who are you, or anyone, to force a woman to take that risk against her will?

Without a doubt it is when it is already proven those laws do nothing to prevent abortion, but every one of them, without exception, punishes women. There are policies that do work to reduce abortion--free and inexpensive birth control and comprehensive sex education, but oddly, most pro-lifers refuse to even consider those policies which are proven to actually reduce the number of abortions.

So what if it isn't a part of most women's everyday lives? Is that a reason to take away constitutionally protected
rights? An estimated 43% of women have abortions, btw. Probably someone close to you has had one, or will. It is obvious
by your frequent generalization and denigration of liberals, YOU are the one who is listening to propaganda. STEP AWAY from Fox News and hate radio.

The truth is, most legislators are just politically motivated, pandering their very vocal base. 2011 saw a drastic increase in anti-abortion legislation for a record high number of anti-abortion bills. 2013 so far, has the second highest record number.
And it's more than a disagreement. It is literally putting women's lives in danger.

Really? Who says it's a lie? What is the established standard for determining if this is a war on women? I perceive it as a war on women, and my perception is just as valid as yours.

 

Anders stats show diddly squat, as already explained to you, which you ignore.

 

Then it really doesn't matter. Just more semantics nonsense from the Left. Fine. I declare war on women. It's WAR with you DAMES from now on. Watch yourselves! We will be victorious and RULE over your vaginas forEVER!

Happy now?

 

If this is a concession, I'll take it.

 

Pro-choicers have admitted it's about the money.

(thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/263132-women-who-seek-abortions-they-just-lazy.html , posts #4, 6 and 7)


Whenever pro-choicers bring up the argument "How do you expect to force her to have a pregnancy and not help pay for it?", it's almost like these women are holding their fetus hostage.