Why do the Republicans want to take away a woman's right to control her own body?

[Elegiac]

What part about the chances of that happening are less than 1%? Especially when using multiple methods. What part about if you didn't want a baby, you shouldn't have engaged in the action that CREATES babies don't you understand?

2% in the best case scenario.

When men are forced to suffer through the same things as women do during their pregnancy, I might shift towards your viewpoint.

Actually, I wouldn't. I don't regard unborn infants as people and deserving of rights.

[starlord]

If they were taking away the "right for a woman to control her own body", which this thread CLAIMS, all women would LOGICALLY be pro-choice. It is merely a case that involves making women suffer the consequences of their own actions instead of killing a baby who has rights to not deal with those consequences. Logic is hard.

there were a lot of women against womens suffrage cause they felt it was morally wrong for other women to not "know their place."
and the matter has already been LOGICALLY settled by the supreme court, who said anti abortionists are infringing womens rights.

[Elegiac]

Being pro-life isn't really about being anti-women. It's about thinking a fetus/embryo is a person.
If the fetus was a person, then their argument would be much stronger than that of the pro-choice crowd.

Personally I don't really care if fetuses are killed for pragmatic reasons. Altough the closer to the date of birth, the more uncomfortable I am with it.

Except the position is inherently sexist because the brunt of the suffering and risk is forced upon the woman.

[Beavis]

No, I'm merely replying to the topic at hand-- "Republicans taking away a woman's right to control her own body". If that were the case, again, all women would LOGICALLY be pro-choice. But wait, they're not. Because some women are moral beings and feel that it is not their right to murder a baby or control the consequences of their actions.

So, if you're pro-choice, you're immoral. Good to know.

fuckthisthread.jpg

[semaphore]

Rapists don't always use contraceptives.

Didn't you hear? The female body have ways of shutting the process down if it was a "legitimate" rape!

[Rupart]

The quoted phrase I replied to stated:

"Yes really, and all it would take is half the nation (women) to vote against the republican party."

If you wish to retract the fact that this would lead to a landslide victory because "all it would take is half the nation (women)"

and instead declare

"all women would LOGICALLY be pro-choice. But wait, they're not. Because some women are moral beings and feel that it is not their right to murder a baby or control the consequences of their actions."

You're welcome to actually say that you indeed changed your stance and mind.

Are you not very good at reading? The above situation was hypothetical. If the Republican party was REALLY trying to remove the right for any woman to control her own body, LOGICALLY speaking every woman would be AGAINST that. SO that would mean that 50% of the nation, being women, would VOTE against the Republican party. Add in men who support the democratic party == Landslide victory. But there are woman who OPPOSE pro-choice. Meaning that these women are either A) completely retarded and don't want to control their own bodies or B) want to accept the consequences of their actions like any moral and responsible adult.

Are you stupid?

[semaphore]

LOL! I'm done arguing with an idiot. Continue killing off "cells" because you are too irresponsible to use contraceptive methods or control yourself. We all can easily see what party is of higher class.

Because condoms never break and this country have such fine sexual education. Remind me again, what's the political group that's most against funding sex ed? The one that's seems to oppose contraceptives in general?

Oh right, the same group screaming loudest about taking responsibility for contraceptives.

[Lady Tygry]

By all means, take away a woman's right to choose whether to have a child. The unwanted child then has a multitude of great options ahead of him: perhaps he'll be a FAS baby or even get to start life off malnourished because of prenatal neglect. I should think a woman should never be resentful and will totally foot all those bills. Maybe he'll be one of those lucky few who's put up for adoption AND placed with a loving family but that hardly warrants a news story. No, let's assume he'll get to experience the adventure of being passed around foster homes for a variety of reasons. Only good, wholesome people take troubled, neglected kids into their homes. The government certainly doesn't offer any sort of monetary incentive for such altruism. As our boy grows, he can store up all these issues and use them to become a troubled adult with a psychiatrist's textbook of social shortcomings. Maybe he'll party a little too hard with a few girlfriends and set loose a few more unwanted kids himself. It's not like he has to deal with the pregnancy, right? If he's left to deal with his struggles alone, perhaps he'll take up employment as a petty criminal. If he's especially ambitious, he could move on to a felony or two and thank the world for saving him from a life he never knew. He can live for free in a structured facility for several years with his own itinerary already in place without being a burden to anyone at all. After years of frivolity here, maybe a group of the old, white Americans who saw the room for such great potential can gather around and watch as he's given a nice sedative for a much-needed nap.

[Matchu]

Are you stupid?

It's stupid to assume that all women deal with moral questions logically.

[Rupart]

Because condoms never break and this country have such fine sexual education. Remind me again, what's the political group that's most against funding sex ed? The one that's seems to oppose contraceptives in general?

Oh right, the same group screaming loudest about taking responsibility for contraceptives.

The only people against contraceptives are Catholics and that is a very small percentage of republicans. And most of them are democrats. Do some research, dummy.

Second, again, multiple forms decrease the chance of a baby. Logic is hard. Get on the pill and a condom. Or pull out with a condom. Tons of options that don't result in you being an immoral irresponsible idiot.

[Purlina]

Are you not very good at reading? The above situation was hypothetical. If the Republican party was REALLY trying to remove the right for any woman to control her own body, LOGICALLY speaking every woman would be AGAINST that. SO that would mean that 50% of the nation, being women, would VOTE against the Republican party. Add in men who support the democratic party == Landslide victory. But there are woman who OPPOSE pro-choice. Meaning that these women are either A) completely retarded and don't want to control their own bodies or B) want to accept the consequences of their actions like any moral and responsible adult.

Are you stupid?

It's not that cut and dry. Going by that logic the republicans are not against the poor or social services, otherwise poor southerners would never vote for them!

[The Riddler]

The words of the militant abortion types should explain things pretty clearly. To a militant abortionist, the decision to CHOOSE to not have an abortion can only be the result of either indoctrination, or stupidity, or immorality. It is not possible - in their minds - for principled individuals to make a rational decision that disagrees with them. All must bow at the Altar or Abortion. Anyone who does not is "anti-woman", wants to "take away choice", or "don't want women to control their own body..." Yadda yadda yadda. It is the typical attitude of a committed, irrational, ideologue. So much for the famed subtlety and 'nuance' of the so-called progressives, eh wot?

[KHShadowrunner]

Are you not very good at reading? The above situation was hypothetical. If the Republican party was REALLY trying to remove the right for any woman to control her own body, LOGICALLY speaking every woman would be AGAINST that. SO that would mean that 50% of the nation, being women, would VOTE against the Republican party. Add in men who support the democratic party == Landslide victory. But there are woman who OPPOSE pro-choice. Meaning that these women are either A) completely retarded and don't want to control their own bodies or B) want to accept the consequences of their actions like any moral and responsible adult.

Are you stupid?

One, I'm not stupid. I'm quoting you directly.
Two, I'm not bad at reading. I'm quoting you directly.

You make assumptions, many many assumptions. You state that any who oppose are either retarded or of moral and responsible mind. Nevermind any possible fraud that could take place, mislabeling and misleading propeganda. Hell, accidents when voting. You don't state what the opposition stance is, maybe they too are putting in a form of "control", just not the same control.

You label when labeling shouldn't be done.
You insult when insults do not contribute to a healthy discussion.

All I can do is quote you.

[starlord]

Are you not very good at reading? The above situation was hypothetical. If the Republican party was REALLY trying to remove the right for any woman to control her own body, LOGICALLY speaking every woman would be AGAINST that. SO that would mean that 50% of the nation, being women, would VOTE against the Republican party. Add in men who support the democratic party == Landslide victory. But there are woman who OPPOSE pro-choice. Meaning that these women are either A) completely retarded and don't want to control their own bodies or B) want to accept the consequences of their actions like any moral and responsible adult.

its just like those women who wanted other women to just accept their place , and not be able to vote. cause any morally responsible woman would know she belongs in the kitchen.

[Kraenen]

So, if you're pro-choice, you're immoral. Good to know.

fuckthisthread.jpg

calling yourself pro-choice is like calling yourself pro-life. it doesnt make any real sense. you're not pro choice on the part of the fetus, only the mother, and no one that is alive could possibly never kill anything.

[teamoblterate]

Here's lies the rub: nothing is ever as simple as a choice, except when it is.

-People can and do choose to engage is sex (with the obvious exceptions of rape, mental capacity, etc.).
-People can and do choose to be informed on the topic of sex before they do so.
-People can and do choose what to do about the known outcome of sex, regardless of the intention of said outcome.

Now, how people go about being informed about sex before deciding to have sex can have a great deal to do with the outcome of sex. Generally, most people who are pro-life believe that the people involved in the sexual activity should be responsible in about getting informed, so that they understand there is a risk that a baby could very well result, no matter what precautions are taken. The simple, undeniable fact is this: the only guaranteed way to prevent conception is to not have sex.

Regarding rape, incest, and imminent death to the mother, a true proponent of life would say that while they may or may not personally condone an abortion in those circumstances, they can certainly understand, which is why those exceptions should be made. Now, before people fly off the handle about who should condone these actions, remember:

-Amanda America Dickson was a product of rape, and went on to win a landmark case in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the inheritance of her biological father's estate.
-Incest as a whole perpetuated both the ancient Egyptians and the English monarchy for many years.
-Tim Tebow's mother was told she could die if she did not have an abortion.

At the end of the day, does this mean that only married people should have sex? That's not the issue, nor the point. Does this mean that abstinence should be the only method of sex education? Again, neither the issue, nor the point. The point is, should people properly educate themselves and be responsible for the decisions they make? Yes.

EDIT--for clarity

[Elegiac]

The words of the militant abortion types should explain things pretty clearly. To a militant abortionist, the decision to CHOOSE to not have an abortion can only be the result of either indoctrination, or stupidity, or immorality. It is not possible - in their minds - for principled individuals to make a rational decision that disagrees with them. All must bow at the Altar or Abortion. Anyone who does not is "anti-woman", wants to "take away choice", or "don't want women to control their own body..." Yadda yadda yadda. It is the typical attitude of a committed, irrational, ideologue. So much for the famed subtlety and 'nuance' of the so-called progressives, eh wot?

False, the decision to support denying others the choice to abort is what is the result of indocrination, stupidity, or immorality.

We're Pro-Choice, not Pro-Abortion.

[KHShadowrunner]

By all means, take away a woman's right to choose whether to have a child. The unwanted child then has a multitude of great options ahead of him: perhaps he'll be a FAS baby or even get to start life off malnourished because of prenatal neglect. I should think a woman should never be resentful and will totally foot all those bills. Maybe he'll be one of those lucky few who's put up for adoption AND placed with a loving family but that hardly warrants a news story. No, let's assume he'll get to experience the adventure of being passed around foster homes for a variety of reasons. Only good, wholesome people take troubled, neglected kids into their homes. The government certainly doesn't offer any sort of monetary incentive for such altruism. As our boy grows, he can store up all these issues and use them to become a troubled adult with a psychiatrist's textbook of social shortcomings. Maybe he'll party a little too hard with a few girlfriends and set loose a few more unwanted kids himself. It's not like he has to deal with the pregnancy, right? If he's left to deal with his struggles alone, perhaps he'll take up employment as a petty criminal. If he's especially ambitious, he could move on to a felony or two and thank the world for saving him from a life he never knew. He can live for free in a structured facility for several years with his own itinerary already in place without being a burden to anyone at all. After years of frivolity here, maybe a group of the old, white Americans who saw the room for such great potential can gather around and watch as he's given a nice sedative for a much-needed nap.

The story is a little graphic, but this is my stance. It is MORE of a crime to force a delivery of an unwanted child who has an infinitely higher chance of being in poor conditions, than it is to allow a woman to concede that their body is at jeopardy at a part of them that is not under their control.

[Rupart]

One, I'm not stupid. I'm quoting you directly.
Two, I'm not bad at reading. I'm quoting you directly.

You make assumptions, many many assumptions. You state that any who oppose are either retarded or of moral and responsible mind. Nevermind any possible fraud that could take place, mislabeling and misleading propeganda. Hell, accidents when voting. You don't state what the opposition stance is, maybe they too are putting in a form of "control", just not the same control.

You label when labeling shouldn't be done.
You insult when insults do not contribute to a healthy discussion.

All I can do is quote you.

Broad response to realizing that you thought I contradicted myself when you really failed at reading comprehension is broad.

Good day.

[Rawke]

Bottom line is that the option of abortion should never be scrutinized by individuals outside of the bigger picture. You can argue till your blue in the face, but in the end most don't know whats going on or how it will affect the individual. Most people that give birth young (83% of abortions are done by woman under the age of 25.) have to get government assistance to afford even having a son and most of those individuals are barely mature enough to take care of themselves let alone instill values and morals on a younger generation.