Why don't Pro-"lifers" Treat Abortion as Murder?

A "plutocratic theocracy" to be more accurate. As we've discussed NO abortion restriction EVER passed by Republicans....ever inconveniences the poor. Of course theocracies tend to have a "different standard" of prosecution and oppression for the elites anyway....but throw in the rest of the Rightwing Agenda on domestic policy and plutocracy would be a key component.

And of course as with all fundamentalist versions of the major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam)....it's about controlling women. How many times do we see the "you sluts want to play, you have to pay" banter on pregnancy from the "pro-lifers" (even more bizarre, as people who view "life as a gift" supposedly....view pregnancy as PUNISHMENT, righteous punishment for sexual "immorality")

Or when you see them talk of "Girls who got pregnant out of wedlock before the 1960s were ostracized and were shamed."....again, notice the pejorative view of pregnancy, to support the desire to see women's sexuality "punished".

Throw in the way "abortion is murder....okay, well, it's not 'murder' if it hurts the Cause or involves somebody on OUR side who has 'repented. Only applies to Governments and doctors!'" answers to questions about prosecution. Backing off from their own "moral stance"....for dare we say not only political, but personal reasons?

But America has always had its run in with theocrats...had them in the 20s. Re-read "Elmer Gantry". Had them in the 80s. Falwell and the Moral Majority. And they've always lost....it really gives one hope and optimism about America, doesn't it? As long as we stay vigilent.

 

Specifics always tend to trip you guys up, Chuz. "HOW do you determine if a woman is pregnant before she's not?" "HOW do you stop them from crossing into Canada?" "IF it's 'murder', do you prosecute it like 'murder'....or 'something less' and your rhetoric is false?" "HOW THE HECK are you going to ban pineapples and papayas?"

 

Deflection from the question .. why am I not surprised.

and it was you who mentioned the "not our fault" argument was it not?

Lets see now we have

1. Slippery slope fallacy - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
2. Strawman fallacy - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
3. Appeal to fear - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html
4. Appeal to Ridicule - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

 

What language was that?

We can't keep criminals from breaking laws. We can only make their crimes punishable and I would argue that we should do that as well.

That's not entirely up to me.

However, I think there should be consistency in our laws... don't you?

If a drunk driver can get 20 years for killing a prenatal child in a car crash.... shouldn't someone who kills the child deliberately get at least the same?

I don't that as being necessary.

Do you?

 

We are still on topic.

So, what has been deflected?

I think you are mixing the contexts and I wasn't using a "not our fault" argument besides.

If women (especially under duress) were being told BY THE GOVERNMENT that abortions are a right, that it doesn't kill a child and that they are not to be prosecuted for getting an abortion.... How has government not absolved the woman of any liability for the killing of the child?

Using that argument ^^^ to suggest that the GOVERNMENT can also claim "it's not our fault" is ludicrous.

You haven't supported your allegations.

You haven't show anything in those comments to be fallacious.

 

I don't deny that religion plays a role in the agendas of some (if not most) pro-lifers.

But there is a growing number of us who are not religious and who would much rather keep religion OUT of it.

 

however you (as in the group) can never escape the fact that the whole pro-life agenda and mandate is based in religion, including the "person at conception" idea, though you (as in the group) dress it up to be something else in attempts to hoodwink unknowing people.

 

slavery is not the topic

Your comment as follows -

Slippery slope - that if the government do charge all women that had an abortion they could abolish the constitution
Strawman - ignoring the position and substituting "abolish the constitution" as an exaggeration of the position
Appeal to fear - implied "threat" that if the amnesty to woman were removed, so could the constitution be
Appeal to ridicule - implied sarcasm throughout the whole response.

 

You would have to ask someone in "that group" who deals with that.

I don't.

 

I never said it was.

Tell me.... have you ever contemplated the saying "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it?"

There are lessons we have learned as a nation in our history.

It would be foolish to dismiss that knowledge each time a new issue presents itself.

So, it's not a diversion - to bring a lesson learned from slavery into a modern debate... it's a wise thing to do - to prevent making the same mistakes again and again.

Do you disagree?

It's sad that you feel the need to twist my words in that way - so that you can claim them to be fallacious.

 

not at all when used in the correct context and in a way that actual relates to the topic, slavery and the holocaust have no relation to abortion, except in the minds and dreams of pro-lifers.

It sad that you feel the need to defend your obvious intent when caught out - so you can claim someone is twisting.

 

Classic denial

(again)

[video=youtube;3B2YG7vtwXA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B2YG7vtwXA[/video]

 

repeating the fallacy (again)

 

For me - it all has little to do with Sanger anymore...

But dayummm

 

Well she was pro-life so it's not surprising she said some totally insane things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

 

You do realize Sanger was involved in the civil rights movement, right? Do you even know the context of the quote?

 

It is sad to see the same tired old ad hominem attacks from the same tired old hymn sheet, makes me wonder if the pro-lifers have run out of ideas - not that they many to start with.

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/demonization_of_ms.html

 

What was the context of that quote? Lol @ pro choicers trying to deny her blatant racism.

 

The context of the quote was that Sanger didn't want black women (who didn't trust whites, for some reason) to misconstrue the purpose of the Negro Project which was to help black women:

Sanger herself said of the Negro Project (which was supported by prominent African-American civil rights activists like W.E.B. DuBois and Mary Bethune McLeod) that it was designed to help:
"a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation."

If she were a racist, would Martin Luther King have praised her? He said this:

“There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. “

 

Let me re-phrase. How are you going to determine that a woman has had an abortion...without first being able to prove that she was pregnant in the first place?

See above....how do you PROVE that a woman got an abortion in Canada? And then "punish them for their crime"?

Your OPINION on the question is entirely up to you. If abortion is "murder"...do you want a woman who lives in a state with the death penalty to face EXECUTION if it is shown she self-induced an abortion....Yes or No? And like "murder"...should there be no statute of limitations? Or is abortion NOT "murder" but some "lesser form of homicide"?

Pineapple and papaya in large quantities are natural abortifacients. How do you prevent women from using those fruits for that purpose...without attempting to ban or restrict their sale???

 

It's an EXTREMELY lame attempt to try to convince people that people who support the right to abortion are "racists like Margaret Sanger was".

Fine....then "pro-lifers" are "terrorists like Eric Rudolph was"....and there is a LOT more proof of Rudolph's ideology and violence.

 

If Sanger was so "pro-life."

What happened to change Planned Parenthood into the largest pro-abortion industry in the world?

 

As the analogies and similarities are easily seen by objective minded people.... those comparisons will continue to be made in spite of the cries and whining by idiots who want to deny those similarities.

My intent is to legally establish and to defend the rights of children in the womb who are now being denied by the likes of you.

I've never tried to hide my intentions.

 

Oh, I have no doubt she was involved in the civil rights movement!

We have photographic proof of that!

 

Just like the bulk of your "proof," it's fake. Here is the original photo: