Another Big Lie from the anti-choicers- "We'd support abortion if pregnancy...

threatened the woman's life."

Look at Bowerbird's poll-

http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/466012-these-women-should-not-have-abortion-11.html


THREE of the "pro-lifers" voted "None of the Above"....when one of the options was clearly "A woman diagnosed with a condition where pregnancy would end her life"....

and NONE of the "pro-lifers" chose that.


Showing that, for a certain portion of the anti-choicers, the Big Lie of "No, no, no...of course, we'd allow an abortion if the woman would die"....is just that....

a big lie.

 

Three out of how many that voted is a minority. A small one at that. I voted "none of the above" with a caveat. If it endangers the woman's life then yes she should have an abortion unless expressed otherwise. I'm pretty sure the other two that voted were thinking the same thing. So to say that ALL pro lifers are lying when they say we would support (for lack of a better word) an abortion if it indangers the woman's life. I think you have a strong case of exaggerating.

 

Which of the following women should not have an abortion?


None of the above : should not have an abortion.....

 

The choice of a woman whose scenario said it would endanger her life, was there to cover your supposed "caveat."

Why would you pick "None of the above"....which would INCLUDE a scenario where the woman's life would be threatened????

- - - Updated - - -

Either Maccabee didn't understand the question....or the poll.....or his FIRST response was "No, no abortions EVER" and he didn't care about the "life of the woman endangered" scenario.

 

Because all the others cases I fully agree. You shouldn't have an abortion simply because you can't afford a baby. If you truly can't afford a child then put it up for adoption.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you can choose multiple choices then "none of the above" was the closest thing to my beliefs on the ballot. Like I said earlier I mentioned in the thread that if the pregnancy indangers the woman's life then she can have an abortion.

 

My comments: none of the above except if it indangers the woman's life. Boy, you anti life types jump on EVERYTHING.

 

You've misunderstood the wording. The vast majority of the voters chose "none of the above". As in "None of the above should not have an abortion", not "none of the above should have an abortion."

As evidenced by the words of Bowerbird who posted the question:

"So - all the "pro-lifers" which of the above women in this poll should NOT have an abortion

And just picking "All of the above" is not acceptable unless you tell us why you would be condemning them to face a future that will be fraught and in some life threatening."

Obviously the "all of the above" was the option that meant "all of the above should not have an abortion".

 

So all those people clicking "all of the above" are pro lifers. Hilarious. Of course I made the same mistake by clicking the opposite but still.

 

None of the above is the pro-choice option, all of the above the pro-life option. The pro-choicers that chose "all of the above" made a mistake.

Presumably so did the OP.

 

Oh. Upon looking at it I realized that I picked "all of the above". So I didn't made a mistake. OP did.

 

Yeap. The funny thing is OP is angry because the majority supports his views.

 

Anti wanton homicide is the better way to describe the decent folks who oppose abortion at will. Even the Federal law the UVVA recognizes the rights of a "child in utero at any stage of development". A non human being doesn't have rights such as those described in this federal law. Allowing anyone to kill another human being just because they want to with no oversight is immoral at best.

 

Which I still stand by my original statement. That is absolutely hilarious!!!

 

Then you should have picked the "Woman's life endangered".....not "None of the above" and THEN tried to "caveat" it.

But your FIRST instinct was "None of the above"....i.e. "NO, not even for the woman's whose life was in danger from a pregnancy."


Call it self-righteousness (wanting to FIRST prove how "pro-life" you are) or a knee-jerk reaction (you didn't even read the poll questions)....

it proves my point on the initial instinct of the "pro-lifer"...."No abortions, no matter what."

 

Whatever the semantics....the sentiment was to give options for what scenarios a "pro-lifers" would agree to allowing an abortion.


Clearly, they were choosing (even if by mistake) a "None of the above"...i.e. under NO scenario would they allow an abortion....not even if the woman's life was threatened.

 

You are assuming that everyone else misunderstood too and didn't realize "none of the above" was the pro-choice option.

Most of the people who voted, myself included, were well aware of what the poster meant when they were voting. The comment exchanges beneath the poll indicate that. Even if someone found the options vague, the poster's comment shows what she meant. Following comments of hers make it crystal clear.

Personally I was not even aware that some people were confused.

 

If it was "None of the above" is "pro-life" or "None of the above" is pro-choice....it's not that relevant.

The key thing I'm pointing out here is how NONE of the "pro-lifers" picked the scenario exception for the woman whose life was threatened by the pregnancy.

Thus showing, their first instinct is to NOT care if a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy and would NOT agree to let her have an abortion.....the opposite of what they claim.

 

Again, you have misunderstood the question. The options mean the exact opposite of what you think.

Question: "Which of these women should NOT have an abortion?"

Option: "Woman who has just been diagnosed with a disorder where pregnancy could end her life".

If they chose that option, it meant that they thought the woman whose life is threatened SHOULD NOT be allowed to have an abortion.

Which is exactly why they did not. The vast majority of them voted "none of the above", thus allowing all the exceptions.

 

The OP should redo the poll and rephrase the question to "which of these women should be denied the right to an abortion?"

 

I was a bit confused by the poll like OP was. Oh wait, you are OP. if I read more carefully I would've voted "when her life is in danger".

You should be a psychiatrist. You obviously know more about me than I do. Like I said I didn't read carefully and the poll was a bit confusing. Even so I didn't made the mistake of being angry at the very people who agreed with me.

If it was really like that then I wouldn't put a caveat. Misreading something is rather common. You should be familiar with it.

Said the pot. You attacked your own allies.

 

So you agreed that ALL of the women in the various scenarios should be allowed to have an abortion?

Or did you mean NONE of them should be allowed to have an abortion....including the woman whose life would be endangered.

Go ahead....clear up the confusion?

 

The degree that you and two other "Democrats" are trashing the forum with redundant and junk new threads should stopped. The EXTREME attention whoring of your thread creation is so absurd you now start a thread about a thread, rather than just posting on the that thread. You literally are starting new threads on topics there are already as many as 4 threads on already.

 

First of all hypocrite, you was confused by the same poll. Second, the poll said "which of these women should not have an abortion", not "which of these women should have an abortion" so my only option is to click "all of the above". If it was the latter then I would click "when her life is in danger". Happy now?

 

You didn't answer my question-

When you clicked "None of the above", did you MEAN "None of the women in those scenarios should be allowed to have an abortion."


BTW, before Liking Jake's posts...keep in mind, he's here on this Forum backing up my premise that Trump is really....pro-choice.

And yet?...you're going to vote for him....aren't ya, Macc?

 

I clicked "all of the above". Trump was pro death and now he's pro life.