No they don’t.
And you do not always know what an organization does with the money you give.
We all support evil at some point. We all buy gas, and who knows what a bank does with the money you are saving.
[sarcastic anti-abortion voice]:But that doesn’t give you the right to kill two innocent babies. You could have given birth and let them live. Someone would have adopted them. It wasn’t your decision to make[/SAAV]
I’ve read anti-abortion material that states giving to a living child and watching it die is less painful and better for your physical and mental health than having an abortion. When you read that only 90% of people support abortion when it saves the women’s life, you have to wonder about the other 10%. It’s better for a woman to risk dying in childbirth than to have an abortion:confused:
Are they pushing to have it outlawed ? Then they are trying to harm women. Are they supporting people or groups that do ? Then they are supporting the attempt to harm women. Are they talking about how abortion is murder ? Then they are encouraging people like the fanatic in the OP.
It is less a surprise now that you are so fond of over-exaggerations and comparisons with Hitler.
Since you like it so well, I will try to simulate your reasoning (I am NOT fond of it):
[fishy comparison on]
Hey, you want to keep rape illegal? Well, you harm some people’s personal wellbeing.
[fishy comparison off]
My point is: when you change rules, you always “harm” somebody. They question is, what is more important, the amount of harm done to women, or what these people want to prevent, killing babies.
I answered the question for myself, I am pro-choice, but I do not have a problem with people who answered this question differently. We are still friends.
Demonizing the other rarely helps. But then again, I am talking to somebody who thinks that a comparison of the political opponent with Hitler is ok.
A truly pathetic attempt. No one is harmed by rape being illegal.
Abortion doesn’t “kill babies”. Nor have the “pro lifers” ever shown any concern for the welfare of actual babies. They don’t want to stop anyone killing babies, they want to hurt women. That’s what their actions are consistent with.
And this is what I mean by the misuse of Godwin’s law.
Because then they’d have to track down and murder about 1.4 million people a year.
Rape and unwanted pregnancy are both examples of people thinking they have the right to use a woman’s reproductive system against her will.
If a man does it, it is called “rape.”
If people support a fetus doing it, it’s called being “pro-life.”
[fishy comparison on]
Yes, the rapist. He is less happy.
[fishy comparison off]
Yes they do. Even being pro-choice I admit that.
That is a stupid generalization. Nobody right in his mind can think this.
Yep, abortion is one of the few issues that sane, rational people on both ‘sides’ should really be able to understand. It’s not like we have a human-life-o-meter, and some people define it differently than others. We can accept that some people believe that a fetus is a human life and that it should not be aborted just as we can accept that some believe it is not a human life and can be aborted.
Leaping to accusations that “they all just want to hurt women!” shows someone who, at the very least, really doesn’t understand people and is unable to differentiate reality from their own subjective ideas.
Also, as Der is an insane person, asking him to consider people as people rather than comic book heroes won’t accomplish much. He’s still waiting for the Der Signal to start his War on Badness.
Perhaps that’s not their intent… but they sure would be doing that if they got their way. I cannot see anything wrong with Siege’s list of suggestions for reducing abortion (except I’d add paternity leave). If anti-abortionists truly wanted to reduce the number of terminations, they’d hand out condoms at every rally and fund the fuck out of Planned Parenthood (even the ones that perform abortions) to subsidize birth control. They’d be clamoring for comprehensive sex ed and appalled that the school system has failed their children. They’d make sure expecting women and young children got the best damn healthcare in the world, whatever their race or class. They’d write to every politician they know to get Plan B sold over the counter, maybe even make first trimester abortions free or heavily subsidized – and available throughout the nation – to keep women from having to save up to afford done… only to find out it’s too late and the second-trimester abortion will cost even more.
Yes, some of these actions might conflict with their other fundamental beliefs, but if they really, truly intended to reduce abortions in the US they’d put personal pride aside.
Oh, please. :rolleyes: Forcing women to go through pregnancy and birth isn’t even close to such a stupid comparison.
It’s especially ironic because that’s exactly the kind of argument that the religious right makes all the time and means it. "We can’t forbid gays to marry ?! We’re being oppressed ! We can’t force everyone to live by our religion ? We’re being oppressed ! We can’t beat our children ? We’re being oppressed ! "
A fetus is not a baby.
Oh, really. Then where have they shown concern for actual children ? The children they want to force to be born ? Or the welfare of the women they want to force to bear children ? Or pre-natal care ? Or pro-birth control ?
They consistently act in a fashion hostile to women.
The anti-abortionists most certainly do define human life differently, and in a fashion that is inhumane and makes no sense.
We allowed stupid generalizations since our discussion on Godwin’s law, remember?
Oh Irony, it hurts 
That is open to debate.
Honestly, what is more likely?
a) A very large number of people are plain evil, hate women and want to harm them
b) There is a philosophical difference in the definition of life which results in different priorities for different people.
Think … carefully!
Ever notice that Pro-Life people are always Pro-Death Penalty?
There’s no “irony”; your are just demonstrating why Godwin’s Law has become useless. Because I say that some unspecified people or situations deserve comparison to Hitler, you act like that means any incoherent gibberish goes.
Considering that women have been oppressed for most of human history, that the people is question ACT consistently hostile towards women, that those people tend to belong to the groups that were or are doing the oppressing, and that the “definition” in question is irrational and ignorant, “A”.
Der Trihs, try and follow along…
I said:
Or the next abortionist murderer, the point is you’re missing the point.
Then you said:
Abortion is neither legally nor morally murder.
Thank you for that, but killing someone who performs abortions is. Derrr…
Again, the point is you’re missing the point. That’s why we have a government and laws to protect us from the percentage of humans that turn into sociopathic assholes.
Then I said:
I never said anything about anything being sacred. A sperm isn’t a human, it only carries half the code. I’m talking about terminating a human.
And you said:
So am I committing murder if I scratch myself and kill a few cells ? Your definition of “human” doesn’t make a fetus more valuable; it just degrades the term “human”.
My definition of a human is a properly fertilized ovum, that is undergoing mitosis, on its way to producing the phenotype encoded in its DNA. It remains a human until deceased. Anyone who interferes with that process is terminating a human. Reducing the process of human development, and aging, down to the same level as tissue cells is kind of stupid.
You just discovered the religious right.
But, I was surprised that this was not the case for Annie-Xmas.
To be more precise, the reverse direction (pro-death-penalty people are also pro -life) is not true for her, since she seems to be very much pro-death penalty, but also pro-choice.
Very few pro-lifers ever seem to willing to acknowledge option b.
My mistake, but a reasonable one when people are involved who call doctors who perform abortions murderers. I thought you were referring to Dr Tilley with “abortionist murderer”, not the person who killed him.
No, it’s a perfectly reasonable comparison. If one chunk of flesh that has human DNA is a human life, so is another. Your definition strips away the only part of what it means to be human that actually makes killing someone wrong; the mind. That’s all that makes a human more than a large chunk of meat.
Ever notice how a lot of people who call themselves pro-life include being against the death penalty in that? Like the pope?
Unfortunately that is true.
I think the discussion is emotionally burdened on both sides preventing rational arguments. The problem is, no compromise is possible.
What surprises me is, that the pro-life movement is especially strong in the US, a country which historically emphasizes the rights of individuals as opposed to society.