Whateverman
Well-known member
How can anyone who's pushed back on news of the pandemic's effects here in the US claim to be "pro-life"?
"Pro-life"
- Thread starter Whateverman
- Start date
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
They can't, of course. 'Pro-life' isn't about life at all; it's about posturing and being holier-than-thou.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Pushed back?
You whining about push back on Fake News? People that "tested positive" and never were tested?
We have one crazy that says the number of cases doubles every 3 days.
So twice as many Americans die from smoking this year as from the inflated number dying with Whuhan flu?
You imbecile Biden said 200 million dead
He is a pro-deather.
What a pile of horse ...
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
NWRT
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
That is a vague and overbroad claim/strawman. Worthless political talking point.
What does "pushed back on news' mean?
Display of idiot pushback
"Pro-life" has never been an accurate term for opposition to abortion. Sacrificing the well being and happiness of a woman to an inanimate clump of cells isn't "pro-life" by any reasonable measure.
Relevant: https://peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/abortion-rights-are-pro-life/
Whateverman
Well-known member
Interesting essay. I agree with the vast majority of it, including the part about being willing to sacrifice the rights of the mother while calling yourself "pro-life",
I don't like the way he casually dismissed the concept of the rights of the unborn, though. It was admittedly only a tiny part of the essay...
"Planned Parenthood" has never been an accurate term for abortion - how can women who are not mothers be parents?
It is a carefully chosen name that seeks to dehumanize the unborn.
Temujin
Well-known member
Possibly one of the stupidest arguments seen here. Firstly many women who have an abortion already have children. Secondly the whole essence of planning is looking to the future.
Those who have yet to have children are not planning for parenthood.
Temujin
Well-known member
My own son falls precisely into this bracket. It is a ludicrous statement.
It is barbaric to slaughter innocent baby girls and boys in the name of convenience.
Temujin
Well-known member
It certainly would be. But this board covers abortion. What you are talking about is infanticide, not fashionable since Sparta.
A foetus is not an "innocent baby boy or girl". Most abortions take place before sex is determinable, though that really is not relevant. If you want to engage in discussion in this subject, and I accept that there are powerful arguments on both sides, please leave the simplistic, emotional inaccuracies to one side.
If it is emotional for you, then that would suggest your conscience knows I am right.
At around 10 weeks, the fetus develops a cortex and can then feel pain.
After that, it becomes our responsibility to defend the defenseless by giving a voice to the voiceless.
Temujin
Well-known member
It is our responsibility to defend the woman and give her a voice. For she has been put upon and oppressed for centuries by men who believe that they have the right to tell her what to do with her own body. And she, unlike the foetus, is actually a person, with rights.
Whateverman
Well-known member
That sounds nice, but said responsibility is universally abandoned once those voiceless leave the birth canal.
The woman already has rights - the unborn potential citizen does not and that is an indictment on our society.
Whateverman
Well-known member
The rights a citizen has change with the age of the citizen. Would you say that's just as much of an indictment, or is it just/correct to give different rights to a baby vs an adult vs an octogenarian?