The myth that pro-life views oppress 'women'

The problem with this statement which the abortionist side repeats ad nauseum is that it's a fallacy. If pro-life positions restrict women moreso then men, it's not because of 'discrimination' - it's just because of practicality - ex. because nature decided that women be the ones with vaginas and uterus's, and men be the ones with penises.

So pro-life laws don't actually restrict "women" - they restrict anyone who has a functioning uterus, male or female. The fact that it is mainly women who have functioning uteruses moreso than men is just luck of the draw - but correlation does not equal causation.

For example, take a transgendered man who is medically recognized as a 'male' (but hasn't undergone surgery yet). If 'he' were to get pregnant, then the same pro-life views would be applied to him. Or a hermaphroditic male who has a functioning penis but also has a functioning uterus - if he were to somehow get pregnant then he would be treated now different.

If pro-life laws applied differently to women with uteruses than men with uteruses, then women could make a case of sexist discrimination - but since they apply equally to anyone with a uterus (regardless of sex or sexual identity), then they don't discriminate against 'women' at all.

The abortionist side just pulls the 'mysogenist' card because they can't think of a less emotional argument to use against it. But really they should be made at nature for deciding that women are normally the ones who have uteruses. Or if it bothers them that much, no one's stopping them from getting a sex change surgery now are they?

 

OK, OK, OK....pro-life views oppress women AND any man with a uterus.

 

I wouldn't say it is about oppressing woman, I would say it is about controlling women, just as it would be about controlling any men with a uterus.

 

Well, I am convinced.

We need to more closely regulate the sex lives of the fictional true hermaphrodite, one with functional reproductive organs of both sexes.

Not that there has ever been a documented case of this every happening, so we definitely need to create laws surrounding said fictional issue.

 

Males COULD get pregnant - they were some experiments about thirty years ago on mice and monkeys not to test the idea but to measure the amount of female hormones produced by the placenta. They found the most successful site to implant the fertilised eggs were in the scrotal sac. However the most likely place for a male pregnancy to develop to term would be implantation in the abdominal cavity.

Abdominal pregnancies have been occurring throughout the millennia to women - however survival has only been recent

So, men can become pregnant and the only thing stopping them is society itself - is this not "oppression"?

 

Why is it beyond your comprehension to fathom that perhaps we just care about saving a life? Why do you people always assume the worst possible motives for us just because we don't agree with you?

 

Because none of you are ever willing to back up your claims with any credible or logical arguments. That's why.

I didnt assume that at all. It was the just the only conclusion that could be drawn after such tedious lack of genuine reply and a clear willingness to avoid a serious defence of lifer claims and contentions.

 

Dude, all we do is back up our claims with logic. You're not really in the best position to be judging what's logical since you openly admit that abortion is murder and yet retain this ridiculously sociopathic view that it's still okay. That might actually make your view the single most evil one on this entire forum. Even the pro-aborts should be able to agree with that. At least most of them attempt to weasel out of admitting that a child is a human. Which gives them plausible deniability. You have nothing. You're metaphorically standing over the body with a bloody knife saying, "Yeah, I did it. And there's nothing wrong with what I did." Granted, most of your position is likely a product of your age and fueled by empty youthful angst that's not really rooted in any kind of mature reasoning. Which you will likely grow out of. But right now you need to be angry at the world because it's part of being young. So you think it's cool to be a nihilist. Grrrrr......

 

So if men could get pregnant they wouldn't make abortions in bus stations ?
It shows how much you care about children after they are born by trying to cut down welfare and public programs for them.
"Pro-life" is another term for sexism.

 

For the same reasons you do it to us, and a lack of actual rational argument to back up your position.

 

Is human life special?
Should human lives be protected?
Is a Fetus human?
If yes then it shouldn't be killed, for any reason.
Nothing to do with religion. Just to do with the value of a humans life.

 

No.

Some, yes.

Yes.

Why?

What a stupid assertion. There is no value in a human life just because it is human.

 

Only because some people decide it is, in reality it is no more special than any other animal.

If you believe it is special, why do you believe that?

maybe, depends on their value to others.

it's certainly a member of the homo sapien species, but as to being human, depends on your definition.

Why, when we kill "humans" every day.

Ok, give a non-religious reason why it is "special"
Human life has only as much value as another places upon it.

 

You're right.....if MEN could get pregnant there'd be FREE abortion clinics on every corner...

And Anti-Choicers HATE the thought of one penny of their taxes going to feed a poor child, this "precious gift"....or give it's mother decent health care so she can take care of it....

 

So just empty partisanship then?

 

Not necessarily, I don't doubt that pro-lifers believe everything they say and quite probably believe that what they advocate for is in best interests.
It might surprise you to know that I was very much pro-life in my younger days, so much so that I wanted to take all the arguments pro-choicers came up with and dismantle them and as such I not only looked towards pro-life information by pro-choice as well, and sources that had no axe to grind either way .. in doing so I began to see that the pro-choice side wanted to curtail abortion as much as the pro-life side did the biggest difference between the two sides is how to achieve it.

I firmly believe that the pro-life way will fail, but I do see the pro-choice as having, at least, a chance of succeeding. Despite some of the pro-lifers insisting that we "love abortion" that is simply not true .. as far as I can tell pro-choice want to get to a point where abortion is moot but in doing so not to criminalize women and remove their right of choice.

IMHO the problem with both sides is that they have fringe elements who will not concede ground in any way, shape or form .. which suits the political agenda, polarize the opinion and you have a ready made voting base.

 

You can't prove that Hitler was morally wrong in his position on dealing with lesser people.

 

Just one more way to prove that Anti-Choicers are misogynistic...that, and they compare women to Hitler....

 

At least Hitler didn't have a monthly period.

 

Because periods are just awful aren't they? Flushing out all those fertilized embryos. lol

 

What makes you say that? Seems you cant prove me wrong ever LOL. I can easily prove Hitler wrong. Obviously you cant, which is quite hilarious.

 

You can't 'prove' Hilter wrong, you just have a God complex and seem to think that stating your opinion = 'proving' it.

But if that's your opinion then you'll have to get rid of the Hippocratic Oath, because it forbids doctors from intentionally harming human life. You should also start a campaign to pardon Kermit Gosnell because he felt the same way you do.

 

The Hippocratic Oath has been modified very heavily over the ages. Taking it is not required and it is more of an old tradition than anything else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

 

Quote from Megadeth fan:

 

That's interesting, but I don't see how his personal opinions are relevant to the Hippocratic Oath being highly modernized over the years and not being required to be taken.