Against Abortions mean you are Pro-Life

How many times have you heard someone try to argue that they are against abortions, but they are for a woman's right to choose? I am so sick and tired of this totally obvious obfuscation of reality. You simply cannot be against abortion while also holding the view that you are for a woman's right to choose. People will try to say, "Oh yes, you can be. You see, I (or me and my wife) would never choose to abortion for myself, but I would not want my personal beliefs be dictated to someone else." This argument breaks down when you ask them if they are for laws that would limit a right to abortion. They will always say that they are against that. That in a nutshell is the very definition of being pro-abortion.

The definition of anti-abortion is as follows:

Don't let people try to get away with saying the are personally against abortion, but for a woman's right to choose. It simply does not make sense.

 

What about wanting to prevent white women from killing their unborn babies, while wanting to protect the right on non-white women to choose? See, I can have it both ways!

 

PN, there is a difference between being pro life, and wanting to force your views on others, than being pro life, and not wanting to force your views on others.

When people say they are pro life but don't want abortion banned, they are simply saying that they are personally pro life - meaning they are personally opposed to abortion themselves, and wouldn't have one, but are okay with allowing other women to make the choice for themselves.

Those people are not pro life - they are pro choice.
The only people who seek to force their opinions on others are the pro life extremists.

 

which is exactly the argument he is making in his OP. Did you not read it?

Proabortion people seek to force their opinions on others all the time...they use our tax money to fund Planned Parenthood for example.

 

Uhm.. No. I will paraphrase you:
You simply cannot be against drugs while also holding the view that you are for a others's right to choose. People will try to say, "Oh yes, you can be. You see, I (or me and my wife) would never choose to do drugs, but I would not want my personal beliefs be dictated to someone else." This argument breaks down when you ask them if they are for laws that would limit a right to use drugs. They will always say that they are against that. That in a nutshell is the very definition of being pro-drugs.

Do you think someone who would personally not use drugs has to force his views on others, otherwise he is not really against drug use? That does not make sense.

 

Which forces you to have abortion HOW?

 

it forces me to SUPPORT abortion, financially

 

Only a tiny number of medicaid recipient abortions for rape, incest or life of the woman. Are you opposed to those abortions too?

 

Good for you, at least there is something worthwhile you can claim. Don't forget you also support nuclear weapons and unjustified wars.

 

Sure it does, even when you change the argument in this manner. I am against drug use, and against the legalization of drugs. If I don't use drugs, but I am for - let's say, for legalized marijuana, then I am by definition, pro-drug legalization.

 

Great post excellent !!!

 

So that is what all societies with homicide laws are?

 

So you equate a premeditated homicide with using drugs?

 

It's an ANALOGY, Whaler.

 

No, of course not. Hard drugs are far more evil than abortion. Using hard drugs is far more dangerous to sentient life, so I can agree with their illegality, contrary to abortion, which is harmless compared to benefits it brings.

 

To injest & Blasphemer: Video: Laura Ingraham on The Factor last night:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201201050021

 

a very POOR ONE, WHICH IS MY POINT!

 

What is so hard to understand about someone being personally against abortion, but not against others who may have a different opinion choosing one? It just means one doesn't want to force his own personal or religious view on others. Not difficult to understand.

 

Its difficult for them to understand. If you are pro choice for everyone else and pro life for yourself, it makes no sense to them. You should be pro choice for everything, and even not care when someone has a stillbirth or miscarriage because pro choicers are such heartless cretins!

 

Excellent post. If you are not willing to stand up for a principle you believe is right, then it clearly it doesn't bother you that much. In which case, the fact that you, yourself, are not having an abortion really doesn't mean much. Because it's no different than saying, "I personally couldn't ever kill anybody, but I don't want to push my beliefs on anyone else."

Personally, I really don't care what a woman does with/to her own body. If she doesn't believe me, she can cut her arm off and see how indifferent I am about it. But killing your child is not the same thing as cutting your arm off. Killing your child makes you no different than Casey Anthony.

 

Pro-drug legalisation doesnt necessarily mean pro-drug use. I am also personally against drug use, since drugs are harmful, but I do not support drug criminalisation - because they are not harmful enough to justify huge expenses and problems related to their criminalisation. At least all soft drugs are not.

The same can be with abortion - people can be personally against abortion (altrough I am not, even personally - I dont consider abortion bad at all), but still do not support its criminalisation, because that would bring even more problems in their eyes.

People can personally oppose something, without automatically wishing to force their view on others with the threat of state violence.
Thats what true sense of liberty dictates.

 

Some may believe the theory that life begins at conception, but they also understand it is just one theory of many, and there is no established consensus for any one of them. Without an established consensus of opinion, there is the chance their personal opinion could be wrong, so they would not force their own religious/personal beliefs on others, especially knowing the risks every woman faces in pregnancy.

I don't understand why anyone would presume to know answers that have been debated by scholars for all time without resolution, or feel they are morally correct to force all women to continue a potentially dangerous pregnancy and childbirth--especially when criminalization of abortion does not necessarily reduce the rate of abortion, and without exception it increases the maternal death rate.

Do you promote policies known to reduce the rate of abortion, or those that punish women?

Are you really saying an unborn "child" is no different than a born child?

 

Maybe it does not mean much or anything to you because you are not able to rationalize all aspects involved and no doubt that is why you are following this with the ignorant comparison between killing and abortion. When was the last time you saw the overwhelming position on abortion as it stands on killing?

Because it's no different than saying, "I personally couldn't ever kill anybody, but I don't want to push my beliefs on anyone else."

More ignorant talking points. Do you have any evidence relevant to that case? Why not present it to the law enforcement agencies instead of spouting it here?

 

Those who self-describe as "pro-life" end to promote intra-uterine life. Once decanted from the safe haven inside your mother, you're on your own, and should you commit a crime as a child you'll be deemed an adult, and killed.

 

the term "pro life" is a misnomer.

anti choice would be more accurate.