5 ms·

How is the pro-life position discriminatory against women? The question is one of line drawing of when life begins that needs to be protected. The pro-life pos

How is the pro-life position discriminatory against women? The question is one of line drawing of when life begins that needs to be protected. The pro-life position believes that life should be protected earlier than the pro-choice position. That is not discriminatory against women. We are obviously setting side abortion in cases of rape. So the pro-life position is equal in it's belief about women's autonomy over their bodies. It's only that the pro-life position believe the fetus should be proetect earlier the women's autonomy over her body is equally protected.

v64 10y ago
> The pro-life position believes that life should be protected earlier than the pro-choice position. That is not discriminatory against women. I disagree. I think it's absolutely insulting to say that an unborn, memoryless fetus/embryo/cell cluster has more of a right to life than the living, breathing, self-aware woman its inside. > We are obviously setting side abortion in cases of rape. This isn't obvious. Many conservatives believe abortion should be universally disallowed, including pregnancies resulting from rape.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  >I disagree. I think it's absolutely insulting to say that an unborn, memoryless fetus/embryo/cell cluster has more of a right to life than the living, breathing, self-aware woman its inside. I think it's telling that instead of defending the core of your position, that abortion should always be allowed, you're falling back to periphery issues, such as what to do when the life of the pregnant woman is threatened by the pregnancy. Many (most?) pro-life people would agree with allowing abortion in such cases, and it's really a sideshow to the main question.
  - v64 10y ago
    What I'm saying is that no matter what, a woman gets the final say over what happens to the undeveloped fetus that's inside of her. At the extreme end of that position, if one of them has to die, the woman gets to make the choice who, not the fetus, not the state. But even if the woman's life isn't at risk, the choice should still be her's. > Many (most?) pro-life people would agree with allowing abortion in such cases It doesn't matter, because they are many more who want to ban it entirely. Many religions, such as the Catholic Church, teach that there are no circumstances in which abortion is acceptable. Women have died in Catholic hospitals because of this doctrine. If we say some abortions are allowed, and some aren't, then we're politicizing what should be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.
kefka_p 10y ago
> How is the pro-life position discriminatory against women? In that you don't already comprehend, I doubt I'll be able to aid in your understanding, but here goes nothing. The state allows men to exercise control over their own reproductive systems more completely than women. It really is that simple. Men have all options available e.g. vasectomy, wearing condoms, etc. Women on the other hand see the "party of small government" lead the charge into their hospital rooms, dictating to them what rights they have insofar as control of their own reproductive systems goes. If men also could get pregnant, it wouldn't be discriminatory. That the only reproductive control technique to be denied women is a technique only available to women, any laws to restrict such techniques are inherently discriminatory toward women. The attempts to restrict abortion effect women's rights directly, far more so than men, many of whom vanish before a child is even carried to term. Does that help clear it up?
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  >If men also could get pregnant, it wouldn't be discriminatory. That the only reproductive control technique to be denied women is a technique only available to women, any laws to restrict such techniques are inherently discriminatory toward women. This is preposterous logic. Women have the same access to birth control than men do. In fact, as it stands now, the options available to women are vastly superior, i.e. the pill. The fact that only women can bear children does not make the regulation of abortion "discrimination". Discrimination would be if both sexes could bear children, but only abortion by females was banned. Do you think that abortion on the day before birth should be legal?
  - kefka_p 10y ago
    > Women have the same access to birth control than men do ... As it stands the opinions of people who have zero involvement in a woman's reproductive cycle easily exert legislative and legal control over the options available to women. Can you provide even a single instance of male reproductive regulation subjected to similar legislative control? > In fact, as it stands now, the options available to women are vastly superior You think of abortion as a form of birth control because your involvement in the process is essentially binary. Either you want a child or you don't. Either you wear a condom or you don't. For women exercising control over their reproductive rights isn't restricted to the timespan of a sexual encounter. An association between birth control and abortion in the greater context of reproductive rights seems to me indicative of a singular and fairly rigid perspective. > The fact that only women can bear children does not make the regulation of abortion "discrimination". Perhaps you should study the definition of discrimination. My OED lists two definitions to include: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex" and "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". In its most neutral definition, that is in the sense of differentiating two things, discrimination is rendered necessary by laws regulating abortion specifically as a direct result of the fact that women are the only ones who can become pregnant. The definition with more negative connotations makes reference to prejudice. The Wizards of Ox define prejudice as "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience", or alternatively "harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment". Give that anti-abortion laws are passed, in part, by men whom by definition have no actual experience with the subject of legislation, it doesn't seem much of a leap to interpret such behavior as being prejudicial and thus discriminatory. > Do you think that abortion on the day before birth should be legal? In some cases, absolutely. Consider a premature baby born five months before it should be with no hope to survive, or the case of last minute complications that threaten a woman's life, or last minute discovery of terminal congenital defects.

v64 10y ago

> The pro-life position believes that life should be protected earlier than the pro-choice position. That is not discriminatory against women. I disagree. I think it's absolutely insulting to say that an unborn, memoryless fetus/embryo/cell cluster has more of a right to life than the living, breathing, self-aware woman its inside. > We are obviously setting side abortion in cases of rape. This isn't obvious. Many conservatives believe abortion should be universally disallowed, including pregnancies resulting from rape.

marcoperaza 10y ago
>I disagree. I think it's absolutely insulting to say that an unborn, memoryless fetus/embryo/cell cluster has more of a right to life than the living, breathing, self-aware woman its inside. I think it's telling that instead of defending the core of your position, that abortion should always be allowed, you're falling back to periphery issues, such as what to do when the life of the pregnant woman is threatened by the pregnancy. Many (most?) pro-life people would agree with allowing abortion in such cases, and it's really a sideshow to the main question.
- v64 10y ago
  What I'm saying is that no matter what, a woman gets the final say over what happens to the undeveloped fetus that's inside of her. At the extreme end of that position, if one of them has to die, the woman gets to make the choice who, not the fetus, not the state. But even if the woman's life isn't at risk, the choice should still be her's. > Many (most?) pro-life people would agree with allowing abortion in such cases It doesn't matter, because they are many more who want to ban it entirely. Many religions, such as the Catholic Church, teach that there are no circumstances in which abortion is acceptable. Women have died in Catholic hospitals because of this doctrine. If we say some abortions are allowed, and some aren't, then we're politicizing what should be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.

kefka_p 10y ago

> How is the pro-life position discriminatory against women? In that you don't already comprehend, I doubt I'll be able to aid in your understanding, but here goes nothing. The state allows men to exercise control over their own reproductive systems more completely than women. It really is that simple. Men have all options available e.g. vasectomy, wearing condoms, etc. Women on the other hand see the "party of small government" lead the charge into their hospital rooms, dictating to them what rights they have insofar as control of their own reproductive systems goes. If men also could get pregnant, it wouldn't be discriminatory. That the only reproductive control technique to be denied women is a technique only available to women, any laws to restrict such techniques are inherently discriminatory toward women. The attempts to restrict abortion effect women's rights directly, far more so than men, many of whom vanish before a child is even carried to term. Does that help clear it up?

marcoperaza 10y ago
>If men also could get pregnant, it wouldn't be discriminatory. That the only reproductive control technique to be denied women is a technique only available to women, any laws to restrict such techniques are inherently discriminatory toward women. This is preposterous logic. Women have the same access to birth control than men do. In fact, as it stands now, the options available to women are vastly superior, i.e. the pill. The fact that only women can bear children does not make the regulation of abortion "discrimination". Discrimination would be if both sexes could bear children, but only abortion by females was banned. Do you think that abortion on the day before birth should be legal?
- kefka_p 10y ago
  > Women have the same access to birth control than men do ... As it stands the opinions of people who have zero involvement in a woman's reproductive cycle easily exert legislative and legal control over the options available to women. Can you provide even a single instance of male reproductive regulation subjected to similar legislative control? > In fact, as it stands now, the options available to women are vastly superior You think of abortion as a form of birth control because your involvement in the process is essentially binary. Either you want a child or you don't. Either you wear a condom or you don't. For women exercising control over their reproductive rights isn't restricted to the timespan of a sexual encounter. An association between birth control and abortion in the greater context of reproductive rights seems to me indicative of a singular and fairly rigid perspective. > The fact that only women can bear children does not make the regulation of abortion "discrimination". Perhaps you should study the definition of discrimination. My OED lists two definitions to include: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex" and "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". In its most neutral definition, that is in the sense of differentiating two things, discrimination is rendered necessary by laws regulating abortion specifically as a direct result of the fact that women are the only ones who can become pregnant. The definition with more negative connotations makes reference to prejudice. The Wizards of Ox define prejudice as "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience", or alternatively "harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment". Give that anti-abortion laws are passed, in part, by men whom by definition have no actual experience with the subject of legislation, it doesn't seem much of a leap to interpret such behavior as being prejudicial and thus discriminatory. > Do you think that abortion on the day before birth should be legal? In some cases, absolutely. Consider a premature baby born five months before it should be with no hope to survive, or the case of last minute complications that threaten a woman's life, or last minute discovery of terminal congenital defects.