Are you seriously trying to turn this on me when you're the one touting this as beneficial in the first place? I'm just informing you of what it is.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Senate Republicans oppose Reproductive Freedom for Women.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Wow, that point just soared over your head. The denial is strong here.
You mis-characterize my recognizing the reality of awful
consequences of denying abortion rights as "eugenics".
You don't address these consequences.
You oppose reproductive autonomy, thereby putting
government in charge of it.
Yeah, I'm turning this authoritarian thuggery on you.
BTW, you've not even provided any cromulent
argument for denying women this right.
It wasn't a point, it was a distraction. Either you support people having freedom over their own bodies, or you don't. I see that you don't. Eugenics has nothing to do with it. Supporting choice is not supporting Eugenics.
Just keep repeating slogans. That's all you're doing.
It's still eugenics. That's my whole point.
You missed his point that something today
isn't necessarily something from history.
Your suggestion that abortion rights are
eugenics is absurd because no one is being
denied the right to reproduce.
Labeling it without a cogent explanation
isn't convincing. It's just sloganeering.
It is what it is - eugenics.
No, it is fluzeliggletronics. If the definition of words no longer matter then why not just make up words.
Some demographics are being pressured to have abortions, though. There's what's called negative and positive eugenics. Positive is when certain groups are encouraged or discouraged from having children, negative is when they use literal force such as sterilization. The use of force doesn't look good these days, so they rely on propaganda. I go to the "bad areas" and there's abortion clinics and pro-abortion posters that treat it like it was a great choice with no emotional fallout. I've never seen that in other, wealthier areas.
Who? How? Where? When?
If you have any evidence of this, I am strongly opposed to it.
The whole point is that people should be free to make their own choice, freely.
Btw, forcing people to have children against their will is eugenics.
I already gave an example.
I've not heard of one case of a woman being forced into giving birth, but I know of multiple examples of women being forced into abortions. That's almost always what's going on, when it comes to force with this issue.
Can't argue with that....cuz you present no argument.
Why do you so fervently oppose abortion rights?
Is an "unborn child" really a child? Would you buy an unblown vase, an unglazed plate, or an unmade table? All these things are works in progress, but that vase is not a vase while it's a blob of glass on the end of the blowpipe, the plate that hasn't had glaze applied and fixed in the kiln isn't yet dinnerware, nor the table without legs, stain and varnish a table.
Nobody would feel a thing if that vase was abandoned because it wasn't going the way the artist wanted it, nor the plate that developed a crack before applying glaze, nor the table if the maker no longer liked the design. And nature itself frequently abandons a "work-in-progress" in the womb -- as I said, around 30-50% of all successful fertilizations -- without human interference. Your beliefs ought to tell you that that must therefore be considered part of the design, part of the plan. You just balk when a human, rather than nature, makes the decision.
But we that all the time! We put up lightning rods to thwart nature's desire to burn our house or barn down. We develop treatments for cancer, which seems to be a particular favourite of the Creators because, like beetles, there are so bloody many of them. And that doesn't bother you!
Ah, but you'll allow for "the tiny minority where the mother's life is at risk." But not where her mental or emotional health is at risk. You put yourself in the position of deciding FOR HER how much she can bear -- and that is one of those places that I object so strenuously to religion. That your belief takes precedence over the private decisions of another person.
When any religion provide proof of God, and proof of commandments by God, I'll listen. Until then, it's your belief, your creed, your understanding -- and not a single thing more than that. In exactly the same way that once upon a time, there were people who believed that if they failed to cut the heart out of a living child, the gods would be angry and the rain wouldn't come.
I tried to present an argument but you didn't play your part to allow an argument to develop, so you get what you give. I'm not putting in all the work in a discussion.
People have the right to resist social pressure.
But you would use government backed up by
threat of violence to "pressure" women to give
birth when they want otherwise.
That's what I call specious labeling.
Why don't you support your claim of forced
sterilization being a consequence of abortion
rights.
So you would deny all women abortion rights
simply because of your social engineering agenda
to populate the country with more people from
"bad areas"?
Really? Have you looked? You seem to be able to Google anything else you want.
In post-Roe America, women detail agony of being forced to carry nonviable pregnancies to term
ABC News interviewed 18 women as part of the series "On the Brink" about abortion in America after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Then you have not been paying attention.
Girl, 13, gives birth after she was raped and denied abortion in Mississippi
The nearest abortion clinic – in Chicago – was too far away and too expensive for her mother to provide her with the procedure
Her baby was going to die. Abortion laws forced her to give birth anyway
Instead of being able to end her pregnancy, a Texas mother spent months carrying a child she knew wasn’t going to survive. Her daughter died four hours after being born.
www.cnn.com
Are you talking about women being forced into abortions by the state? In the U.S.? Recently? If so that is horrible and should be opposed strongly. But not by denying other women control over their bodies.
Don't try to make an argument.
Just do it.