Yeah, well, you force enough girls and women in Podunk IA to have babies, eventually Podunk’s population will be large enough to support a CVS.
Except of course for such laws being backed by anti-woman groups and always being implemented in a way hostile to women.
No, it makes an obvious comparison between how the genders are treated.
You are just bending over backwards trying to pretend that this isn’t about persecuting women.
You can’t possibly say that anyone who is anti-abortion from the belief that human life begins at conception are really against it because they want to persecute women.
How about because it’s factually false? Why should a doctor be forced to tell an objective lie.
Nope.
Pffft. Forcing someone to do “x” and allowing someone to opt out of “y” are completely different things.
I can infer exactly that when they they show that they don’t give a shit about the baby after it’s born.
You can propose that inference, but you’ll have to back it up with more than just your say-so.
Those are two completely separate things. I know numerous people who believe that abortion is murder who are in fact progressive women.
I don’t to back up an inference. My inferences belong to me. They may or may not be accurate, but they are still what I infer.
In this case, that inference is hard to disagree with, though. The same political faction that screams the most about “unborn babies” is unwilling to spend a penny of public money to help them after they’re born. It therefore becomes extraordinarily difficult to take them seriously when they say that care about the fetuses.
Do they believe that women should be allowed to make that choice for themselves? If not, then they aren’t progressive.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to use your opinion as a point of debate.
My, what a broad brush you have, DtC.
Not to mention the absurdity of requiring people provide sustenance for person “x” in order to prove that those people don’t want to kill person “x” for any other reason than they abhor killing. Religious institutions, often opposed to abortion, have traditionally helped fund orphanages and arrange adoptions.
It takes a certain mindset to think that aid can only arrive through the arm of the state.
I didn’t. I said I made an inference.
Who am I brushing? I have said nothing about all pro-lifers. I have said that I can fairly make an inference about the sincerity of those who demonstrate a contradictory attitude in later circumstance. There really is no other reasonable inference to make. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Why are you even arguing?
The fact that they don’t give a shit about the babies after they’re born belies their claims that they abhor "killing’ fetuses.
By the way, wanting the government to force women to carry pregnancies to term IS wanteing the government to “provide sustenance.,” They just wasnt they support to stop the second the baby is out of the woman/. ASfter that, they’re perfectly content with letting the baby starve or freeze or die from lack of health care. Maybe that doesn’t sound hypocritical to you, but I’m incapable of the gymnastic kinds of rationalization that must take. Why can’t you just call a spade a spade?
tell that to your precious pro-lifers. They’re the ones who want the government to create these burdens.
In GD. Anything posted here is assumed to be a debate point unless otherwise noted.
“The same political faction…”
Because it’s not hypocrisy.
Now you’re just restated the same unsubstantiated claim as before.
No, it’s not.
Because it’s not a spade.
I have no association with pro-lifers. I just don’t demonize them all.
A person who believes that murder is occurring doesn’t distinguish between who is making the decision. It’s no less murder to them if the woman herself is making the decision or a congressperson.
I agree that the effect is to persecute women. And that some people are quite happy to have that effect. But that’s not what’s motivating a lot of the people who believe that human life begins at conception.
That’s the whole reason for that particular idea in the first place. It isn’t consistent with anything else about how we view human life, nor does it have a scientific basis. It’s a definition of “human life” tailored for the sole purpose of justifying reducing women to breeding animals.
And again; anti-abortion groups the world over consistently act to harm women, and nothing more. They show no concern for the life of the babies they force to be born, much less the mother. If there are actually people in the anti-abortion movement that care in the slightest about the “babies” they are vanishingly rare.
What are you babbling about? We are talking about forcing doctors to lie and forcing women to serve as brood mares.
This is ridiculous.
That is factually true.
The hell it isn’t.
It is self substantiating, and frankly irrefutable. Demostrable hyocrisy is demonstrable hypocrisy.
Yes it is. They want to government to step in and force an unwilling citizen to be a life support system for a parasitic organism.
You say that, but you haven’t offered a bit of argumentation as to why it’s not a contradiction.
Neither do I. You’re trying to create a strawman,.
You didn’t answer my question. Do they think that women should have the legal choice to terminate a pregnancy or don’t they? I’m not interested in whether they think abortion is murder. I’m asking what they think the law should be.
I have not asked. If they follow their convictions to the end, it could very well mean they would be against legal abortion. That doesn’t necessarily make them anti-women. As I said, if they believe strongly enough that abortion is murder, then they can very well believe that one can’t legalize murder. Not all anti-abortion believers are anti-women.
eta: Yes, I did answer your question.
It would mean that they aren’t “progressive,” as you claimed. It also mean they support takinmg at least one important right away from women, which is not exactly PRO-woman.
eta, no you did not answer my question. I asked you if they wanted to make abortion illegal. You told me their religious belief about abortion.
Reading this thread, it looks like:
-
The law prevents doctors from performing their duties properly by making them provide misleading information to outright lies to patients. (Telling a patient that ‘life’ begins at conception is misleading at best. The issue is whether a person begins at conception and that is not a doctor’s place to judge. Also, emergency contraceptives are not abortifactents (sp). Finally, current science holds that a fetus cannot feel pain until sometime during the third trimester).
-
The law allows a licensed pharmacist to refuse to do the job he/she was licensed to do.
So, it prevents one health professional from doing his/her job properly and allows another to not do his/her job properly. Reminds me of that creepy gun law in which a pediatrician can’t even talk about gun safety to parents.
Jesus, how did this country get so fucked up?