What will it take to change attitudes towards abortion?

Archive From The 'Tank
Locked
User avatar
sgt.null
Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
Posts: 47250
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Brazoria, Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by sgt.null »

Avatar wrote:So much sweeping generalisations these days Hashi...

--A
Avatar - this is what a sitting democrat governor had to say.

https://youtu.be/SkTopSKo1xs

So I his mind, killing s baby after birth is ok.
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

That's not the same as saying all democrats want late-term abortion on demand though is my point.

--A
User avatar
sgt.null
Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
Posts: 47250
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Brazoria, Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by sgt.null »

A good percentage of Democrats favor
Abortion with no restrictions.
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

I dispute that broad sweeping generalisation

Here is a link to Democrats For Life

https://www.democratsforlife.org/

The house democrats who oppose abortion
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.cnn ... index.html
"I support the teachings of my LDS faith that oppose abortion except in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother's life and in certain other rare circumstances. I support the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the use of tax dollars to fund abortion, with certain exceptions," McAdams said in a statement Friday.
This is particularly interesting.. Gallup pole showing abortion positions per party

https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abo ... party.aspx

Not such a polarising issue after all is said and done 😉
Last edited by Skyweir on Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
sgt.null
Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
Posts: 47250
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Brazoria, Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by sgt.null »

Only your last link works.
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Pro-life cause stymied, but not because of court decision [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
Pro-life activists gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court June 29 in Washington. (CNS/Reuters/Carlos Barria)


The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, striking down a Louisiana law that requires hospital admitting privileges for physicians who perform abortions in that state's clinics, was surprising and inconsequential. It is surprising because Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's liberals to reach the decision to overturn the law; and, it was inconsequential because these cases about restrictions on abortion access do not get to the heart of the matter. The pro-life movement needs to take three steps back and reconsider how it can and should seek to defend unborn human life.

These incremental approaches to overturning Roe v. Wade are not helpful. Normally, I am a fan of incrementalism, but on the issue of abortion, incrementalism entails too much dishonesty. You would have thought Monday's decision was the end of the world if you listened to some conservative critics. I wonder if we will hear calls for Roberts to be denied communion because of his vote.

On the other hand, you can be sure if the decision had gone the other way, pro-choice groups would have claimed the sky was falling. Incrementally chopping away at abortion with a variety of particular legal attacks does little to help women or their unborn children. It only serves to help pro-choice and pro-life groups raise money and meet their payroll. The symbiotic relationship these groups have created prevents compromise and poisons our political life.

Does anyone really believe that the conservative Louisiana legislators who drafted the now-overturned law were really motivated by concern for women's health? In a statement issued Monday, Archbishop Joseph Naumann, chair of the bishops' conference's Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said, "The Court's failure to recognize the legitimacy of laws prioritizing women's health and safety over abortion business interests continues a cruel precedent." The archbishop may genuinely be concerned about the health of women, but Republican politicians applaud the mistreatment of women if they are undocumented immigrants, and they support a president who is trying to overturn the Affordable Care Act, which provides prenatal care to millions of unborn children, so the moral credibility of GOP legislators cannot be stipulated.

The heart of the matter is whether we, as a society, are going to treat pregnant women with dignity and give them the support they need so that they never view a pregnancy as a burden. Will we restructure our society so that parenting is not a career ender? Will we make sure that pregnancy costs no more than an abortion? Will we have child support services so that a single mom does not have to carry the full weight of parenting non-stop, 24/7? John Carr, who was a longtime lead staffer on public policy at the bishops' conference, has always said we need to make abortion unthinkable before we make it illegal, and I think he is right. I do not see how the pro-life movement can or should move forward right now. We need a more propitious time and more propitious leaders.

But what to make of Chief Justice Roberts? ...

[...]

Roe short-circuited a series of legislative debates that were then taking place in the country, and there is no going back. Our constitutional system is not great when it comes to resolving debates that are, at root, categorical: Is the unborn child a human person or not? Our libertarian culture would rather let individuals decide what to do, rather than demand the kind of equitable rearrangements of society to support mothers when they become pregnant and parents once a child is born. If we truly want to make sure that every child is "protected in law and welcomed in life," we have a lot more work to do than the kind of legal shenanigans that are currently consuming the pro-life and pro-choice movements.

I wish I could discern some humane way forward, but I can't. I conclude by associating myself with a statement published by El Paso Bishop Mark Seitz:
Ours is not a country that unambiguously welcomes life. We are the only developed nation in the world without paid leave for mothers and universal access to healthcare. In the United States, women continue to be objectified and marginalized in our economic, political, and social life. For many, to choose motherhood or fatherhood today is to choose a life of heroic sacrifice.

But we are deceived if we think that the taking of unborn life in the womb is of no moral consequence. Abortion also idolatrously robs God of the last word and forecloses on mercy and hope. And Jesus teaches that death can never have the final word.

We must resist the throwaway culture that marginalizes, depreciates, silences, and discards the vulnerable. From our migrant families in immigrant detention to the child entrusted by the hands of angels to new mothers, to those brutalized by the ugly practices of racism, to our forgotten parents and grandparents in nursing homes -- let us never give up on life.


Image
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

U.S. judge permanently stops Georgia's 'heartbeat law' from taking effect
Image
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is seen May 5, 2020, in Albany, Ga. He signed the "heartbeat bill" May 7, 2019. On July 13, District Judge Steve C. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled the law infringed upon constitutional rights. (Credit: Curtis Compton/Atlanta Journal-Constitution,TNS via Reuters via CNS)


ATLANTA, Georgia -- The head of a leading national pro-life organization said she was disappointed "the will of the people is being thwarted" in a federal judge's permanent block to keep Georgia's "heartbeat bill" from ever taking effect.

It would have banned abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is around six weeks. It had exceptions to save the life of the mother and in the case of rape and incest if a police report is filed. It also makes exceptions to allow abortions when a fetus has serious medical issues.

On July 13, District Judge Steve C. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled the law infringed upon constitutional rights, including those established by the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

"As this ban directly conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent (i.e., the core holdings in Roe, Casey, and their progeny) and thereby infringes upon a woman's constitutional right to obtain an abortion prior to viability, the court is left with no other choice but to declare it unconstitutional," Jones said in his ruling.

"The beating heart of a vulnerable unborn child should awaken the conscience of our nation, and Georgia helped lead the way with the passage of its heartbeat bill," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List in Washington. "We are disappointed that the will of the people is being thwarted with today's decision striking down this compassionate law."

"We thank Gov. Brian Kemp for championing this legislation, and we stand with pro-life Georgians in the fight to protect this strong, compassionate pro-life law," she said.

[...]


Image
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

sgt.null wrote:Only your last link works.
Fixed :P

Illuminate your good self 😉
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Erasing Margaret Sanger from Planned Parenthood doesn't change abortion's eugenic logic [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
In this March 1, 1934 file photo, Margaret Sanger, who founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, speaks before a Senate committee to advocate for federal birth-control legislation in Washington. (AP Photo, File)


On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York announced that it will remove founder Margaret Sanger's name from its Manhattan health clinic and urge New York City leaders to remove her name from a street sign near the clinic because of her "harmful connections to the eugenics movement."

It took them long enough.

It is certainly a welcome acknowledgment of historical fact that Planned Parenthood is owning the racist, eugenicist history of Sanger. But this does not excuse their continued perpetuation of her legacy through their insidious practice of targeting the most vulnerable, especially poor women and women of color (both of whose populations so often intersect), by locating the vast majority of Planned Parenthood clinics within walking distance of nonwhite neighborhoods.

Sanger supported policies to sterilize people with disabilities that could not be treated, and according to a Planned Parenthood fact sheet, called for "placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes and dope-fiends on farms and in open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct." Sanger was so dedicated to controlling populations she considered to be "undesirable" that she accepted an invitation to speak to a women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan, seeing it as an opportunity to gain support for her cause. In 1939, Sanger launched the Negro Project, which she wrote was aimed at "helping Negroes to control their birth rate," while advocating for a federal "population bureau" to police reproduction.

Sanger also endorsed the 1927 Supreme Court decision Buck v. Bell, which held that compulsory sterilization of the "unfit" was constitutional. Most states did adopt involuntary sterilization policies, and by 1967, more than 60,000 people had been sterilized, often without their consent or even their knowledge. The decision has never been formally overturned.

It was because of Buck that the movement to use sterilization as a tool of population control was able to target vulnerable communities, including women of color, robbing them of their true reproductive freedom and of the precious gift of motherhood. The sterilization of Black women in the Jim Crow South was so prevalent that the euphemism "Mississippi appendectomy" came to mean a forced hysterectomy on Black women, including the civil rights icon and pro-life activist Fannie Lou Hamer.

[...]

While Sanger's name may be removed from public spaces, her legacy of destruction and dehumanization remains. Millions of children of color and poor children who were priceless are gone forever: nameless, unloved and buried in medical waste. Scrubbing Sanger's name from an abortion clinic does nothing to improve -- much less save -- the lives of children who are maimed and killed or the women who have been sold the lie that they and their unplanned pregancies are a problem to be solved.

Sanger did oppose abortion itself, but from its very inception, the mission of the American Birth Control League and later Planned Parenthood has been, in effect, to target, control and ultimately reduce vulnerable, "undesirable" populations. Without Sanger, there would be no Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the United States today. No amount of virtue signaling from the abortion advocates who now run the organization allows them to escape this fact.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood:
  • Three in four women receiving abortions are among the poorest income groups.
  • Six in 10 who are driven to abortion are women of color.
  • Six in 10 women who undergo abortions are already mothers.
  • Half of all abortions are repeat abortions.
  • Because of the lack of resources and support for mothers in school and at work, as well as from the fathers of their children, women cite these obstacles as top reasons to seek abortion.
[...]

With $600 million a year in taxpayer money, plus fees -- money that frees up resources for the provision of more than 345,000 abortions -- Planned Parenthood of America's annual revenue is more than $1.6 billion, $1 million of which goes to their president. We still see today the privileged preying on the poor. That has always been Planned Parenthood's business model, and until their leadership rejects this approach and instead embraces pro-woman, pro-life holistic solutions, we will continue to see disparities of race, sex, ability and class persist, and that is not how we achieve justice for all.

Knowing who is at highest risk and by listening to the reasons that drive women to abortion, we know whom to serve. And we have our task list. Women deserve better.


Image
User avatar
sgt.null
Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
Posts: 47250
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Brazoria, Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by sgt.null »

Like the Democrats,,
Planned Parenthood
Wishes to deny their
Racist history. No doubt
Part of the reason they
Support each other is
That they share the same
DNA. Leopards don't
Change their spots...
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 35


Margaret Sanger's extreme brand of eugenics [Opinion]
Image
Margaret Sanger, far left, at the Zurich Birth Control Conference in September 1930 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)


It was with some astonishment that I learned several days ago that Planned Parenthood of Manhattan had decided to remove the name Margaret Sanger from its headquarters and had encouraged other Planned Parenthood affiliates to do the same. The authorities cited Sanger's eugenicism and racism as the motives for this dethronement of the iconic founder of the Birth Control League and its successor, Planned Parenthood. Until recently, anyone who criticized Sanger in print would be swiftly rebutted by Planned Parenthood apologists, who insisted that the charges of eugenicism and racism were false. But stubborn facts and our nation's new scrutiny of our racial history have eroded the mythology of Sanger and laid bare her eugenics project in its racist, coercive details.

As we demythologize Sanger, it is important to recognize how extreme her brand of eugenics was. Her much-republished "My Way to Peace" (1932) presents Sanger's essential eugenics platform. It argues that to preserve racial hygiene, the government should enact three coercive measures. First, it should sterilize those with mental and physical disabilities, including "morons, mental defectives, epileptics." Second, it should segregate on state-run concentration farms a much broader public of impoverished and criminal citizens, including paupers, prostitutes, drug addicts, illiterates and the unemployed. If the second group reformed its behavior and accepted sterilization, it could return to mainstream society. By Sanger's own estimate, 15 million to 20 million citizens would live under this regime of segregation and sterilization. The third initiative would be obligatory birth-control training for mothers with serious diseases, such as heart disease, in an effort to persuade them to renounce any future childbearing. This program was not about "choice."

Sanger's eugenics program made relatively modest gains during her lifetime. But she and her associates succeeded in one area: compulsory sterilization. More than 30 states passed laws authorizing agencies to sterilize forcibly those considered "unfit" for childbearing. The statutes targeted the mentally disabled and prisoners.

[...]

At least 70,000 people in the United States were forcibly sterilized under the laws promoted by Sanger and her associates. Far more, especially women prisoners and women on welfare, were surreptitiously sterilized.

Race was never far from Sanger's brand of eugenics. One of Sanger's most cherished initiatives was the Negro Project, which targeted predominantly black neighborhoods for birth control programs and recruited African-American leaders to persuade minority populations of the value of contraception and sterilization. In a 1939 letter to Clarence Gamble, Sanger revealed the racial underpinnings of her delicate project: "We don't want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the [African-American] minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Defenders of Sanger argued that such passages are not in fact racist, but few observers have been fooled. The African-American scholar and activist Angela Davis dissected the racism in Sanger's version of birth control: "When Margaret Sanger ... [built] an independent birth control campaign, she and her followers became more susceptible than ever before to the anti-Black and anti-immigrant propaganda of the times. Like their predecessors, who had been deceived by the 'race suicide' propaganda, the advocates of birth control began to embrace that prevailing racist ideology." Davis shrewdly concludes that with Sanger, birth control (based on individual freedom) degenerated into population control (engineered by a coercive state). And there was no question as to the color of the populations to be targeted.

Sanger's racist eugenics is not idiosyncratic. She reflects the triumphant eugenics elite that included presidents (Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson), jurists (Holmes) and philanthropists (John D. Rockefeller). They embody the country-club ethics of exclusion turned lethal. As we demythologize Sanger, we should canonize the victims of eugenicist hysteria. There is no finer candidate than Corrie Buck, the victim of eugenicist fear and deceit. Perhaps we could build a statue of her. And place it on the front steps of the Supreme Court -- right next to a statue of Dred Scott.


Image
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Abortion: Discuss, don't debate [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
Demonstrators are seen near the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington March 4. The court heard oral arguments that same day in June Medical Services v. Russo, a challenge to a Louisiana law, passed in 2014, that requires abortion providers to have "active admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility. (CNS/Tyler Orsburn)


It started on Twitter. After our executive editor Heidi Schlumpf published a column praising Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for a magnificent speech she delivered after Congressman Ted Yoho called her something vulgar (which I shall not repeat), pro-life activists attacked Schlumpf on Twitter. She was called Satan. She was called a baby murderer. Schlumpf's sin? She had not denounced AOC's stance on abortion.

[...]

In this day and age, we have grown accustomed to these kinds of reactions, but shouldn't we expect better from pro-lifers? If you really care about the dignity of every human life, you can't treat other people like dirt. We all have bad days. No one knows better than I the spiritual and moral danger of judgmentalism, and many times must I confess the sin of delectatio morosa. But it seems that every time someone crosses the pro-life Catholic brigade, you get this kind of over-the-top, profoundly hateful reaction, and I suspect it doesn't help the pro-life cause one little bit.

Now, a new report from the McGrath Institute for Church Life at the University of Notre Dame confirms that suspicion. The methodology of the study -- in-depth interviews with 217 people, selected at random but who approximate the diversity of the country -- allowed the researchers to get past the tired and hoary labels that this discussion is stuck with: Turns out "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are terms that have become fraught with associations that do not reflect the complexity and the ambivalence of people's views on abortion.

"The majority of Americans occupy the edges of neither ideology nor abortion attitudes," the report states. "Most fall somewhere in between."

The whole report is important, but for my purposes today, I would like to focus on the fourth part, which offers suggestions about how we, as a culture, can facilitate a more fruitful conversation about abortion, specifically two of the key points the report makes.

First, the report states, "Americans can talk about abortion under the right conditions, are more inclined to enter conversations than debates, and would benefit from expanded education in science, law, and moral reasoning."

Far be it from a columnist to denounce the positive benefits of debate: Steel sharpens steel. But because abortion is viewed by most people as a deeply personal issue first, and only as an abstract political issue subsequently, the preference for conversations over debate is more likely to avoid short-circuiting the conversation.

There are times and issues on which it is advisable to be stiff-necked. Indeed, on this issue, I wish some Catholic politicians had been more stiff-necked in the 1970s. (Connecticut Gov. Ella Grasso was a great exception: She remained opposed to abortion and will always be a hero to me.) It is no longer the 1970s, and there is no going back. It is a time to persuade, and persuasion requires more conversation and less debate.

The other point I would like to highlight is this one: "Americans can enter conversations about abortion on common ground to support positive long-term outcomes for pregnant women, their conceiving partners, and children." The report confronts the prevailing narrative that has largely governed the discussion so far: "For decades we have heard that the abortion question hinges on one thing: whether or not what is inside the womb is a 'baby' or a 'fetus' -- a 'person,' 'human being,' or 'life' with equal protection under the law."

This is true, of course: In one sense, the discussion is a categorical one. Still, the categorical debate has landed our country and our culture in this terrible place in which the extremes dictate the terms of debate.

[...]

The first thing to be done by those of us who believe abortion is an infamy is to find or create greater bonds of solidarity with women and their children and to discuss abortion only in terms of solidarity. The science, so often invoked these days by those on the political left, will help end the libertarian, autonomy framing of the discussion: Whatever else you may or may not know about an unborn child, its DNA is different from that of its parents and so the argument "it's a woman's body" misstates the actual scientific reality. So, too, does ignoring the degree to which an unborn child is completely dependent on the mother's body. As soon as we, as a culture, recognize that we are talking about two souls, solidarity has a shot to redirect the discussion in ways that respect women and protect unborn lives.

The abortion issue is about to heat up. A "pro-choice" Catholic is about to be nominated for the presidency, and he undoubtedly will be joined by a pro-choice woman on the Democratic Party's ticket. The challenge for Catholics is to avoid the debate and look for ways to start some conversations. The McGrath Institute's report is a good place to start.


Image
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

I agree that a collegiate response is far more effective than an adversarial one.

Kudos to the author for finally realising that basic nugget. I am in whole hearted agreeance with the discuss not debate perspective but I do not see any value ever in stiff nakedness .. its always been a position that is portrayed in the negative.

I get that if you are committed to anti abortion that you feel that that commitment should be solidly upheld .. of course.

I wonder if there is a sensible middle ground that can be reached by both anti and pro choice sides.

Noting that pro choice is an expression of liberty over ones own body .. an aspect that can't easily or justifiably be dismissed.

So perhaps finding a way to respect that liberty whilst discouraging abortion more broadly.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
sgt.null
Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
Posts: 47250
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Brazoria, Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by sgt.null »

A middle ground on regards to infanticide?
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

Exceptions to a hard and fast rule .. exceptions are often chips
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5904
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

Skyweir wrote:Noting that pro choice is an expression of liberty over ones own body .. an aspect that can't easily or justifiably be dismissed.
This oft-repeated lie needs to be aborted.

Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with "liberty over one's body", and had you read the decision, you'd know that. Roe v. Wade, and the subsequent cult supporting it, clearly carves out one procedure - abortion - as being a matter of private choice between a woman and her doctor. It does not allow that woman to charge money for sex, nor allow her to sell a kidney, nor to use the drug of her choice. It also (illegally) applies only to women.

Whether or not one chooses to accept the fact that abortion destroys a human life is another argument, but in no way, shape, or form did the decision grant "liberty over one's body".
Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:
Skyweir wrote:Noting that pro choice is an expression of liberty over ones own body .. an aspect that can't easily or justifiably be dismissed.
This oft-repeated lie needs to be aborted.
Another point which will often be raised is that if abortion is made illegal then back-alley clinics will open up so women may receive those services. Yes, we know that is true....but the people saying often say it in a way that approves of, supports, or completely excuses the fact that the back-alley clinics can also operate without medical licenses and don't really have to take the patient's safety into account.

abortion provider : casino :: back-alley clinic: dog-fighting ring

Just because it will happen doesn't mean that we should allow it.

Planned Parenthood--killing more non-white children than white supremacists since....well, since the beginning of recorded history.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
sgt.null
Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
Posts: 47250
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Brazoria, Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by sgt.null »

The left acts as if birth control does not exist.
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5904
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

sgt.null wrote:The left acts as if birth control does not exist.
Worse, it acts as though women don't have the agency or the maturity to use it.
Image
User avatar
sgt.null
Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
Posts: 47250
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Brazoria, Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by sgt.null »

Well Democrats are used to blacks and the unborn being property, having no inherent agency.
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
Locked

Return to “Coercri”