At its rout, doesn't "pro-life" indicate they beleive women are "stupid" or "evil"?

Why doesn't it? It reduces a woman's status to less than the fetus's. Or, in most cases, to less than the embro's status.

 

Why is the woman more important than the fetus?

 

Because without her there would be no fetus. Without her there is absolutely no opportunity for a child to even be born. That is why.

 

Why do you think the fetus is more important than the woman?

 

because the woman is responsible for creating the fetus.

 

That doesn't explain why the fetus is more important than the woman...

 

The value of the fetus is entirely dependent on the woman. It is a potential, she is actual.

 

Yesterday I was responsible for creating chicken soup....I am still more important than the chicken soup

 

Wrong. It places value on the life of a fetus which is seen as EQUAL to the value of a woman's life, whether a pregnant or otherwise. The ramifications of this equality mean pregnant woman are burdened by not being able to kill their fetus, but that does not make it misogynistic. I can think of plenty scenarios with a seemingly 'anti-woman's' rights result that are none the less not misogynistic and are quite justifiable, even to me.

- - - Updated - - -

So power over others denotes greater value/importance?

- - - Updated - - -

How can a fetus be "potential" when its exists already as a fetus? Dont you mean 'potentially' a human? In which case you have to ask, well whats so important about being a human (that's been born)?

 

I don't view the fetus as an 'other' so I don't think this really applies to a fetus.

 

It certainly is another entity, no matter how you view it. Physical autonomy is not required to be an independent entity.

 

Sure, but I guess it depends on what you mean by 'other' do you mean another person or another I dunno, something else? Because I do not believe a fetus is a person.

 

person here simple being a human being, ie member of the species of homosapien. It is illogical to call lifers misogynistic when their consistency of principle, no matter how wrong, is based on an ideal of protecting humans, which itself is not anti-women, but in practice effects most profoundly and primarily women.

 

I never called anyone a misogynist or anti-woman. I don't partake in name-calling here. You must be confusing me with someone else.

 

So you'd disagree with the OP that the lifer position is inherently misogynistic?

 

Not necessarily. I think it varies from person to person. I think some people do have innate misogyny tied in with their anti-abortion beliefs, but I also think that some anti-abortionists truly believe they are saving or trying to save human life. So I would not generalize and state that all anti-abortionists are inherently misogynists, no. Perhaps some are but certainly not all of them. I also don't much care for the ad hom argument anyways and avoid it where I can. Besides I can only take anyone at their word and if they say they think they are saving what they believe is the equivalent to a born person who am I to disagree? I can only hope they are being honest and try to persuade them otherwise because anti-abortion laws ultimately harm pregnant women and only serve to restrict their freedoms.

 

A fetus has no value to anyone unless and until it is gestated by the woman.

There are further ramifications of this "equality." Not only is the woman burdened by "not being able to kill her fetus," she is forced to use her body against her will in a pregnancy that risks her health and life, and permanently damages her body. It takes away her bodily autonomy and means she is unable to make her own health decisions or determine the size and timing of her family. It is a misogyny that manifests itself, not by hatred of women, but by the objectification of them as life support machines.

 

The question is not of lifers though. Its about the ideology of lifers. So to put it bluntly, do you think pro-life is inherently misogynistic? I assume you dont, but the point I'm trying to make is that I dont think its default misogynistic either.

 

If you believe every human has value then you would disagree with that. I personally dont disagree with you but that's beside the point of this thread.

LOL "Objectification as life support machines" is not misogyny - its a fact of nature and of practically, since that is pretty much the description of a parent and a women remains a "life support machine" for their children if they dont abort them up until they can provide for themselves. As for personal autonomy, I dont personally find value in it, nor is there a requirement that one believe in it in order to not be a misogynist. On the other point, lifers are not opposed to women making health choices - their contention is that the health of the fetus must be considered on par with other humans. The woman still has the right to, for example, not have sex.

 

LOL! Well, thank you so much for allowing women the right NOT to have sex !
Got news for ya, women have the right to not have sex, have some sex, have lots of sex...any amount of sex or not they THEY decide.

AND whether or not a woman has sex or how she has sex has NOTHING to do with her right to an abortion....sex should not be debated in an abortion discussion...



""""lifers are not opposed to women making health choices -"""


Oh, how kind of them!

They ARE opposed to women making the health choice to have an abortion. Pregnancy AFFECTS a woman's health but Anti-Choicers say,"" that doesn't matter WE have the right to decide HER choice on health issues.."".

 

No worries, any time.

Indeed, that goes in-tow with the right not to have sex I described above. Didnt you know that?

Its completely relevant to the logic of lifer ideology and it very much can be debated in an abortion debate, no matter how much you dont like it.

 

Why?......

 

Correct. As voters, they have their right to determine who and what should be allowed to be killed. If in the case of abortion this means women's action when pregnant are limited, then that's too bad. That doesn't make them misogynistic.

- - - Updated - - -

Read my response to which you were replying. If you think the points I have made do not follow, in terms of reasoning, point them out and I'll elaborate.

 

YOU: sex...."""""Its completely relevant to the logic of lifer ideology and it very much can be debated in an abortion debate, no matter how much you dont like it.""


And I asked WHY is sex relevant? (I should clarify that by "sex" I mean having sex.)

Follow now?

 

I never said that women don't have the right to have sex. However, their right to have sex without consequences does not override the fetus's right to life.