5 ms·

>This is a bunch of religious zealots Believe it or not but there are millions of prolife people who are not religious. Trying to paint such a diverse group wi

>This is a bunch of religious zealots Believe it or not but there are millions of prolife people who are not religious. Trying to paint such a diverse group with such a paint brush shows you either don't know what you are talking about or are not arguing in good faith.

olliej 4y ago
I don't really care about how a group feels about me when that group's defining characteristic is the determination to control other people's lives and bodies. It is very clearly a movement centered on controlling women, because the pro-life movement has aggressively worked to reduce access to birth control, and undermine or limit effective sex education. A person who wishes to stop abortions should have as their primary goal the reduction in unwanted pregnancies, after all that is the safest and least controlling approach to reducing abortions. However all the evidence shows that pro-choice legislators and activists are the people who actively work to reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancies. Pro-life means working to ensure that women have less bodily autonomy than a corpse. It means that forcing rape victims to give birth, even if they are children for whom birth is potentially lethal (because they're "too young" to make such complex choices). Or just to needlessly kill women. The states that are most aggressively "pro-life" also tend to have the highest maternal mortality rates, the lowest child support, the poorest funded education system. None of those match any claims of being "pro life", they indicate that the only goal is control of women. I'll believe "pro-life" actually means that when I see pro-life politicians making sure child birth is free, that child care is available to all including low/no income, that quality housing is provided for low/no income families. I'll believe "pro-life" campaigners are anti-abortion for reasons other than control of women when they are as aggressively working to reduce unintended pregnancies as they have done to criminalize women. I'll believe "pro-life" campaigners believe life begins at conception when they start child support, life insurance, etc at conception as well.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >I don't really care about how a group feels about me when that group's defining characteristic is the determination to control other people's lives and bodies. We should get rid of laws against theft, murder, rape, etc while we are at it. If you don't support that then I don't really care about your opinion since you just want to control other people's lives and bodies. >It is very clearly a movement centered on controlling women, It is not clear. Maybe you could actually try to understand the other side? If prolifers genuinely believe a fetus is a human than it is not as simple as just controlling women. >because the pro-life movement has aggressively worked to reduce access to birth control, and undermine or limit effective sex education. Some have. Some haven't. You really like to paint with a broad brush. Let me do the same. The pro abortion crowd believes you should be allowed to "abort" a baby after it has been born. I can find a couple prochoicers who believe that so that means every prochoicer believes that right? >A person who wishes to stop abortions should have as their primary goal the reduction in unwanted pregnancies, after all that is the safest and least controlling approach to reducing abortions. However all the evidence shows that pro-choice legislators and activists are the people who actively work to reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancies. Banning abortions can be effective at lowering abortions as well. >Pro-life means working to ensure that women have less bodily autonomy than a corpse. At least it gives rights to her baby. >It means that forcing rape victims to give birth Some prolife people support rape exceptions. You really have no clue about the nuances held by a large number of prolifers. >even if they are children for whom birth is potentially lethal (because they're "too young" to make such complex choices). Or just to needlessly kill women. Most prolifers support an exception for medical necessities. Also, in some situations the fetus can be removed without killing it first. The baby will likely die, but deliberately killing it isn't great. >The states that are most aggressively "pro-life" also tend to have the highest maternal mortality rates, This could be because prolife states tend to be poorer. Of course you think it is because they don't care about woman. >the lowest child support, Many prolifers are in support of raising the child support requirements. Unfortunately due to a two party system you don't have an option of prolife and additional protections for poor mothers / kids. I am not going to even continue since the rest of your tirade is the same. You make no attempt at understanding the other side and always assume the worst. You take stereotypes and assume everyone on the other side are the same. I was correct in my previous post that you are not arguing in good faith. I hope you have a better day than you are apparently having today.
  - olliej 4y ago
    You are right, I was getting angry, and being unreasonable. But while claiming my representation of pro-lifers is unreasonably broad, you repeat a bunch of the standard claims. You make the common claim that laws preventing people from doing things to others without their consent are no different from laws preventing a person from receiving medical treatment of their own body. > "Banning abortions can be effective at lowering abortions as well." It does reduce the number of abortions a small amount, and it also increases the number of women who die during them, when they get them anyway. What actually reduces abortions is reducing pregnancy in the first place. Something that has been repeatedly shown is achieved through provision of birth control, and actual sex education. Doing that results in a much greater reduction in abortions, and doesn't come at the cost of killing women. "At least it gives rights to her baby." I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here? No one has removed anyone's rights to their baby - again, the only right being removed here is a woman's bodily autonomy. In fact, by forcing women to carry unsafe pregnancies to term you may end up forcing them into sterility. So not only did you remove their right to abortion, you remove their ability to have children later. The arguments you are making take the color of "pro-choicers want abortions", which is a standard lie promoted by pro-lifers. The states that are electively pro-choice are also the states that provide contraception, birth control, some semblance of sex ed - things that actually reduce abortions. I do not understand why you think I have not tried to understand. I understand your position very clearly. It is not complex. You believe abortion is wrong, and therefore you believe that it doesn't matter what a woman may believe, that they should not have bodily autonomy. Currently this is limited to abortion, but given you believe that women do not have any constitutional right to bodily autonomy, there is no reason you cannot decide that woman should lose other rights in future. I am not being facetious, and I am not being hysterical. Numerous governments, left and right wing, liberal and conservative, have at numerous points in history determined that women should be involuntarily sterilized (which I guess stops abortions, so yay?) for a variety of reasons - that were mentally ill, gay, non-white, ... See, the problem is that once you say someone does not have bodily autonomy, then you have stated that the government has permission to control those victim's bodies. It's not "just one thing", the debate about abortion is the debate over whether a woman gets a say in what happens to her body. The pro-life position is that women do not.

olliej 4y ago

I don't really care about how a group feels about me when that group's defining characteristic is the determination to control other people's lives and bodies. It is very clearly a movement centered on controlling women, because the pro-life movement has aggressively worked to reduce access to birth control, and undermine or limit effective sex education. A person who wishes to stop abortions should have as their primary goal the reduction in unwanted pregnancies, after all that is the safest and least controlling approach to reducing abortions. However all the evidence shows that pro-choice legislators and activists are the people who actively work to reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancies. Pro-life means working to ensure that women have less bodily autonomy than a corpse. It means that forcing rape victims to give birth, even if they are children for whom birth is potentially lethal (because they're "too young" to make such complex choices). Or just to needlessly kill women. The states that are most aggressively "pro-life" also tend to have the highest maternal mortality rates, the lowest child support, the poorest funded education system. None of those match any claims of being "pro life", they indicate that the only goal is control of women. I'll believe "pro-life" actually means that when I see pro-life politicians making sure child birth is free, that child care is available to all including low/no income, that quality housing is provided for low/no income families. I'll believe "pro-life" campaigners are anti-abortion for reasons other than control of women when they are as aggressively working to reduce unintended pregnancies as they have done to criminalize women. I'll believe "pro-life" campaigners believe life begins at conception when they start child support, life insurance, etc at conception as well.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>I don't really care about how a group feels about me when that group's defining characteristic is the determination to control other people's lives and bodies. We should get rid of laws against theft, murder, rape, etc while we are at it. If you don't support that then I don't really care about your opinion since you just want to control other people's lives and bodies. >It is very clearly a movement centered on controlling women, It is not clear. Maybe you could actually try to understand the other side? If prolifers genuinely believe a fetus is a human than it is not as simple as just controlling women. >because the pro-life movement has aggressively worked to reduce access to birth control, and undermine or limit effective sex education. Some have. Some haven't. You really like to paint with a broad brush. Let me do the same. The pro abortion crowd believes you should be allowed to "abort" a baby after it has been born. I can find a couple prochoicers who believe that so that means every prochoicer believes that right? >A person who wishes to stop abortions should have as their primary goal the reduction in unwanted pregnancies, after all that is the safest and least controlling approach to reducing abortions. However all the evidence shows that pro-choice legislators and activists are the people who actively work to reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancies. Banning abortions can be effective at lowering abortions as well. >Pro-life means working to ensure that women have less bodily autonomy than a corpse. At least it gives rights to her baby. >It means that forcing rape victims to give birth Some prolife people support rape exceptions. You really have no clue about the nuances held by a large number of prolifers. >even if they are children for whom birth is potentially lethal (because they're "too young" to make such complex choices). Or just to needlessly kill women. Most prolifers support an exception for medical necessities. Also, in some situations the fetus can be removed without killing it first. The baby will likely die, but deliberately killing it isn't great. >The states that are most aggressively "pro-life" also tend to have the highest maternal mortality rates, This could be because prolife states tend to be poorer. Of course you think it is because they don't care about woman. >the lowest child support, Many prolifers are in support of raising the child support requirements. Unfortunately due to a two party system you don't have an option of prolife and additional protections for poor mothers / kids. I am not going to even continue since the rest of your tirade is the same. You make no attempt at understanding the other side and always assume the worst. You take stereotypes and assume everyone on the other side are the same. I was correct in my previous post that you are not arguing in good faith. I hope you have a better day than you are apparently having today.
- olliej 4y ago
  You are right, I was getting angry, and being unreasonable. But while claiming my representation of pro-lifers is unreasonably broad, you repeat a bunch of the standard claims. You make the common claim that laws preventing people from doing things to others without their consent are no different from laws preventing a person from receiving medical treatment of their own body. > "Banning abortions can be effective at lowering abortions as well." It does reduce the number of abortions a small amount, and it also increases the number of women who die during them, when they get them anyway. What actually reduces abortions is reducing pregnancy in the first place. Something that has been repeatedly shown is achieved through provision of birth control, and actual sex education. Doing that results in a much greater reduction in abortions, and doesn't come at the cost of killing women. "At least it gives rights to her baby." I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here? No one has removed anyone's rights to their baby - again, the only right being removed here is a woman's bodily autonomy. In fact, by forcing women to carry unsafe pregnancies to term you may end up forcing them into sterility. So not only did you remove their right to abortion, you remove their ability to have children later. The arguments you are making take the color of "pro-choicers want abortions", which is a standard lie promoted by pro-lifers. The states that are electively pro-choice are also the states that provide contraception, birth control, some semblance of sex ed - things that actually reduce abortions. I do not understand why you think I have not tried to understand. I understand your position very clearly. It is not complex. You believe abortion is wrong, and therefore you believe that it doesn't matter what a woman may believe, that they should not have bodily autonomy. Currently this is limited to abortion, but given you believe that women do not have any constitutional right to bodily autonomy, there is no reason you cannot decide that woman should lose other rights in future. I am not being facetious, and I am not being hysterical. Numerous governments, left and right wing, liberal and conservative, have at numerous points in history determined that women should be involuntarily sterilized (which I guess stops abortions, so yay?) for a variety of reasons - that were mentally ill, gay, non-white, ... See, the problem is that once you say someone does not have bodily autonomy, then you have stated that the government has permission to control those victim's bodies. It's not "just one thing", the debate about abortion is the debate over whether a woman gets a say in what happens to her body. The pro-life position is that women do not.