[so just because you're against abortions, you want to take that choice away from the rest of the female population? you're pro-forcing-woman-to-remain-pregnant-against-their-will?]
yeah...pretty much
35 comments
@Julian
aaah nice phase I...
Isn't that why they justify rapists? Laying down a nice wide foundation of guilt for those rude chicks who refuse to have sex...
yeah...pretty much
You can be female and misogynist at the same time. I see it often, actually. Very sad.
The problem in the pro-life movement is that they don´t convincingly assert that you need two to tango. Honestly, if men are only going to be responsible to kids within a marriage, and not even that, according to what I see, well, you have to be consequent. You can´t ask women to stay virgin until marriage. You are part of the thing too, OR NOT. You can´t have both things.
OK I'm not going to argue against this guy here for this.
But instead I want to turn my attention towards the whole argument about abortion. I rarely, if ever, see the two sides of the abortion argument actually giving objective evidence to refute each others claims.
The pro-lifers (removing religion from this as I don't think religion has a place in debate in a country that has no national religion) do not discriminate between life before birth and life after birth. As they do not discriminate they believe that abortion is murder and so should be stopped. Just in the same way that we cannot just murder our 8 year old daughter because she is being a nuisance. I know the 8 year old daughter thing might seem to you (and to me) as incomparable, but when you do not discriminate between pre-birth and post-birth they are identical. So if we set pre-birth and post-birth as equals then yes telling women to not have an abortion is very legitimate.
When arguing against pro-lifers please refrain from using the argument that it's a woman's right and instead focus on objective reasons as to why the potential to become a human is not enough to warrant this as murder.
Now some will probably think I'm a fundie now trying to defend other fundies but trust me I am not. I hate fundies, just the abortion debate is something that has always annoyed me because I see far too little actual objective refuting of other ideas and too much of "It's wrong!" "but, it's the womans choice!" "but pre-birth is no different from post-birth" "yes it is!" "no it's not!" "Yes it is!" "No it's not!" and that is not a debate.
@ #1259867 --
Most of us don't consider the humanness of a mass of tissue to be the main ethical question. While I wouldn't give my cat all the legal rights I expect as a human, she's still ethically more important than would be, say, a finger of mine that had been severed in an accident. The latter is human, the former is not, but the latter is less ethically significant because it's not an independent organism and, more important, cannot experience, feel, suffer, etc. You might have a point about fetuses if you were only referring to the period of time after the nervous system (necessary for sentience in animals) develops and becomes functional, that is, in the third trimester. Before that -- and, it could well be argued, before the point of viability, after which abortions are already only performed in case of certain death of the fetus and disastrous medical consequences for the woman -- there's no sentient human to be a victim. It's not that there are no potential ethical questions (a fetus isn't a person, but it has the potential to become one), but the rights of actual humans (or just actual sentient beings) takes precedence over potential beings.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
