Pointless pro-choice statements

  • Thread starter Thread starter e46m3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

e46m3

Guest
So I was looking online for anti-abortion bumper stickers and a pro-choice( as they like to call it) bumper sticker came up. It says " 77 percent of anti-abortion leaders are men, 100 percent of them will never be pregnant". I just see this as an invalid point, because most leaders of just about anything are men. I was wondering if anyone else has any laughable (lets just call them what they really are) baby killer statments.
 
e46m3 said:
So I was looking online for anti-abortion bumper stickers and a pro-choice( as they like to call it) bumper sticker came up. It says " 77 percent of anti-abortion leaders are men, 100 percent of them will never be pregnant". I just see this as an invalid point, because most leaders of just about anything are men. I was wondering if anyone else has any laughable (lets just call them what they really are) baby killer statments.
Click to expand...
Without doing a formal count, it seems to me that most anti-abortion leaders are women. The following names come to mind:
Dr. Alveda King
Wanda Franz
Judy Brown
Phyllis Schlafly
Gianna Jessen
and not to forget…Susan B. Anthony
 
Interesting post! I thought of a few pro life statements a few weeks ago.

ADOPTION: The CHOICE Everyone can LIVE With

and

Let The Beat Go On…CHOSE LIFE!!!🙂
 
The point of a statistic like that (be it made up or otherwise) is that no man–whether he is for or against the legal protection of abortion rights–will ever need to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term nor will he have to so much as consider such a question in the first person.

I think a somewhat decent parallel would be the opinions of non-Catholic on the question of the ordination of women to the (Catholic) priesthood; they’re not involved in the situation and don’t–or rather shouldn’t–really get a sa\
 
The point of a statistic like that (be it made up or otherwise) is that no man–whether he is for or against the legal protection of abortion rights–will ever need to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term nor will he have to so much as consider such a question in the first person.

I think a somewhat decent parallel would be the opinions of non-Catholic on the question of the ordination of women to the (Catholic) priesthood; they’re not involved in the situation and don’t–or rather shouldn’t–really get a say.
 
It’s a woman’s right to choose.

And if the baby is a woman?
 
ThomasToo said:
The point of a statistic like that (be it made up or otherwise) is that no man–whether he is for or against the legal protection of abortion rights–will ever need to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term nor will he have to so much as consider such a question in the first person.
Click to expand...
Did you figure that out all by yourself?
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
It’s a woman’s right to choose.

And if the baby is a woman?
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. The woman has the right to choose to have sex. If she chooses to make that choice, and happens to get pregnant, she should have a baby. They say it’s not really human, which is what people say when they want to take away peoples rights. When slavery was legal, African-Americans were only considered 2/3 human.
 
ThomasToo said:
The point of a statistic like that (be it made up or otherwise) is that no man–whether he is for or against the legal protection of abortion rights–will ever need to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term nor will he have to so much as consider such a question in the first person.

I think a somewhat decent parallel would be the opinions of non-Catholic on the question of the ordination of women to the (Catholic) priesthood; they’re not involved in the situation and don’t–or rather shouldn’t–really get a say.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The reason for Catholic opinions on the pro-choice argument are COMPLETELY unrelated to sex. Mothers happen to be female. If mothers happened to be male, I’d feel the same way. If Arnold Schwarzenegger got pregnant like he did in that one movie, I would be dead set against an abortion. If I were female, nothing at all would change.

The argument is a total straw man since it doesn’t address any of the real issues surrounding abortion, which is that it ends a human life.

As for your second point about Priestly ordination of women, I have no issue with a non-Catholic debating it as long as they understand Catholic reasoning on the issue and have a legitimate reason to disagree with it.
 
ThomasToo said:
The point of a statistic like that (be it made up or otherwise) is that no man–whether he is for or against the legal protection of abortion rights–will ever need to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term nor will he have to so much as consider such a question in the first person.

I think a somewhat decent parallel would be the opinions of non-Catholic on the question of the ordination of women to the (Catholic) priesthood; they’re not involved in the situation and don’t–or rather shouldn’t–really get a say.
Click to expand...
That may be the point, but the point is not necessarily accurate. Men helped create these “unwanted” children, but some of them might actually want their children. The law does not recognize their parental rights prior to birth, but is that right? How we define the right is important. Is it about bodily rights (did the couple give up those rights when they engaged in sex?), is it about parental rights, (both parents have rights to their born children, why not their unborn children?), or is it about human rights (the right to life)?

We could say that white people had no say in the freedom of the slaves in the USA because they were not black and therefore shouldn’t have a say. But this is illogical, just as I (a white girl) can say that the lynching of black males is morally wrong and should be illegal so can a male can say that the killing of babies in utero is morally wrong and should be illegal. (Maybe even more so, as men and all people were babies in utero at one point in time). 🤷
 
jilly4ski said:
That may be the point, but the point is not necessarily accurate. Men helped create these “unwanted” children, but some of them might actually want their children. The law does not recognize their parental rights prior to birth, but is that right? How we define the right is important. Is it about bodily rights (did the couple give up those rights when they engaged in sex?), is it about parental rights, (both parents have rights to their born children, why not their unborn children?), or is it about human rights (the right to life)?

We could say that white people had no say in the freedom of the slaves in the USA because they were not black and therefore shouldn’t have a say. But this is illogical, just as I (a white girl) can say that the lynching of black males is morally wrong and should be illegal so can a male can say that the killing of babies in utero is morally wrong and should be illegal. (Maybe even more so, as men and all people were babies in utero at one point in time). 🤷
Click to expand...
I like your way of thinking.👍
 
Any ‘pro-choice’ statement (or argument) that talks of abortion being a woman’s issue is genuinely ridiculous.

There are always a minimum of two other people involved other than the mother: the father and, most importantly, THE BABY!!
It is a human right (to life), not merely a woman’s right (to control the body God has given her).
 
[SIGN]" 77 percent of anti-abortion leaders are men, 100 percent of them -]will never be pregnant/-] were babies once, are human too, and courageous enough to stand up for the lives of innocent children"[/SIGN]
 
Feminists: Strong, smart, and independent… Until things get a little bit rough…😛
 
Every time I see pro-life rallies, and pro-life events, what I see is mostly women.

Nevertheless, every baby about to be killed by abortion has both a mom and a dad. And the dad has absolutely no say under current law as to whether that baby lives or dies.
 
Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!

This is probably the most assinine one I’ve seen. For starters, its a giant indication that the pro-aborts don’t have a great deal of knowledge about human reproduction and aboriton, why would I concern myself with your ovaries? I’m more concerned with the unborn child that grows within the uterus. I’m not about to say a rosary for a ovum.

Also, “dont’ like abortion? Don’t have one”, comment I think is silly, its not about not liking abortion, its about recognising that abortion kills a human being.

And “pro-child, pro-family, pro-choice”.

Still waiting to hear how killing children is pro-family.

As for the whole “if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a birth right” or “the majority of pro-life leaders are men, 100% will never get pregnant”, its like teh whole “no uterus, no opinion” mindset, which is rather ignorant really. I mean, I’ve never been a victim of domestic violence, but it doesn’t stop me speaking out against it. Its illogical. You don’t have to be affected, or possibly be affected by something to be against it if you find it morally repugnant.

Of course, all pro-aboriton slogans, and their entire argument, is illogical, faulty, based on emotional sob stories and lacks any medical, scientific or pyschological credibility.
 
e46m3 said:
When slavery was legal, African-Americans were only considered 2/3 human.
Click to expand...
Warning: This is a side note to the discussion at hand. Pass on by if you don’t like history.**

I assume you mean the fact that, for a long time, African American slaves in the south were counted as 2/3 of a person.

This wasn’t actually a determination of how much human they have in them. (It’s semantics, and I understand your argument. Just clearing up a commonly-held misconception.)

The 2/3 counting was actually a tactic to ABOLISH slavery. When the union was formed and, they were trying to write the Constitution, the southern states that had slavery wanted to count slaves as regular people to inflate their census numbers, but, being unable to own land which was the main requirement at the time, slaves could not vote. So, each southern state could then have more seats without a threat of those seats going to an ideologically different group. It was an effort to stack the House with southern delegates who could kill any bill meant to abolish and/or weaken slavery laws, because the south knew the north was intending on abolishing slavery in the Constitution. (Thomas Jefferson actually declared that slavery was morally wrong on all grounds in the Declaration of Independence, but it was stricken from the text because southern states would not join the fight against Britain otherwise, and unity against the common foe was a much more immediate and dire necessity at the time.)

By getting it down to 2/3, the anti-slavery crowd could then petition immigrants to work in the industrializing and commercial north with a better standard of living, tipping the balance in the House toward the north sooner than if slaves counted as 1 person each. While it was not designed as an immediate solution to the slavery question, that compromise, combined with the constitutional amendment process and the law passed to end the slave trade bringing slaves into the United States in 1808, marked the first time in history where a government was substantially set up to outlaw slavery (Kings always could simply ban slavery, but seldom, if ever, did.)

Interesting tidbit that I thought I’d share.

God Bless.

Danny
 
Rabid said:
Warning: This is a side note to the discussion at hand. Pass on by if you don’t like history.**

I assume you mean the fact that, for a long time, African American slaves in the south were counted as 2/3 of a person.

This wasn’t actually a determination of how much human they have in them. (It’s semantics, and I understand your argument. Just clearing up a commonly-held misconception.)

The 2/3 counting was actually a tactic to ABOLISH slavery. When the union was formed and, they were trying to write the Constitution, the southern states that had slavery wanted to count slaves as regular people to inflate their census numbers, but, being unable to own land which was the main requirement at the time, slaves could not vote. So, each southern state could then have more seats without a threat of those seats going to an ideologically different group. It was an effort to stack the House with southern delegates who could kill any bill meant to abolish and/or weaken slavery laws, because the south knew the north was intending on abolishing slavery in the Constitution. (Thomas Jefferson actually declared that slavery was morally wrong on all grounds in the Declaration of Independence, but it was stricken from the text because southern states would not join the fight against Britain otherwise, and unity against the common foe was a much more immediate and dire necessity at the time.)

By getting it down to 2/3, the anti-slavery crowd could then petition immigrants to work in the industrializing and commercial north with a better standard of living, tipping the balance in the House toward the north sooner than if slaves counted as 1 person each. While it was not designed as an immediate solution to the slavery question, that compromise, combined with the constitutional amendment process and the law passed to end the slave trade bringing slaves into the United States in 1808, marked the first time in history where a government was substantially set up to outlaw slavery (Kings always could simply ban slavery, but seldom, if ever, did.)

Interesting tidbit that I thought I’d share.

God Bless.

Danny
Click to expand...
It was 3/5ths. ‘Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons’ (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3).

Your historical analsys isn’t quite up to snuff, however. It was less about abolishing slavery and more about setting up a bicameral legislature that didn’t overly support one side as opposed to the other. You can read more about the three-fifths compromise at claremont.org/publications/crb/id.821/article_detail.asp or your local library.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top