Conflicting Pro-Life Values

Author: Barney
Gun control
Immigration
Abortion
Universal Health Care

Posts

Total: 97
Topic's author
#91
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Athias
Sorry for the delay. My time on this site is divided due to moderation duties.


Admittedly I've been under the impression being pro-life was about being pro-life, and/or anti-death.
"Pro-life" is a sensationalist moniker, much like "pro-choice."
I did not know that pro-life individuals consider their identity a "sensationalist moniker." I can however assure you it is generally not the same for pro-choice people.


...is that really oppression against women?
Yes. As I have shown with evidence of experienced harm, and as the US Supreme court has ruled and upheld (I could similarly cite human rights laws in other countries).


The only thing your studies demonstrated was that abstinence programs weren't effective in getting teens to practice abstinence, not that abstinence wasn't effective
The abstinence resulting from these programs seems to be sex without birth control, directly leading to more abortions. This isn't even a social experiment anymore, since its got that reliable result even in places with stronger conservative values.


Once again, how is she being "forced" to assume this cost?
Right now she's not, as she has many choices about her life. It remains a cost some pro-life people want to punish her with for not getting an abortion; which again, incentivizes abortion.


For going through with a pregnancy they will be paid far less for equal work the rest of their lives [22].
There's a motherhood penalty, and it's justifiable.
Men do not suffer the same stigma. Just glancing around this thread, how many insults have been thrown at women for having sex, and how many at men?


Of course it’s also their children whose lives are damaged, as was reported in the Journal of Pediatrics: 'existing children of women denied abortions had lower mean child development scores and were more likely to live below the Federal Poverty Level' [23]."
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
While it would be better with a larger sample size, it's still a 5-year longitudinal study with a quasi-experimental design. So not a case of fallacious random correlation...
#92
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Barney
Sorry for the delay. My time on this site is divided due to moderation duties.
No explanation needed. I more than understand.

I did not know that pro-life individuals consider their identity a "sensationalist moniker."
It's a characterization made exogenously. Seldom do people grasp getting caught up in their emotions using some meta-analysis.

I can however assure you it is generally not the same for pro-choice people.
That assurance would be null and void, because I would be what you'd call "pro-choice." (I informed you earlier that I was playing devil's advocate.) And I can make the argument that many others who call themselves pro-choice, aren't really pro-choice at all. They're just pro-abortion. When you extend their premise to its logical conclusion, it is not consistently maintained. Case in point: if I were to ask, "Should a mother of a newborn bear the capacity to abandon her newborn using own her own discretion without any ramifications from the State," what would your response be? 

Yes. As I have shown with evidence of experienced harm, and as the US Supreme court has ruled and upheld (I could similarly cite human rights laws in other countries).
Yes, the women in question are harming themselves.

The abstinence resulting from these programs seems to be sex without birth control, directly leading to more abortions.
Seem is not an argument; seem is an impression; and impressions aren't relevant.

This isn't even a social experiment anymore, since its got that reliable result even in places with stronger conservative values.
Once again, the only thing the results demonstrate is that these teens aren't taking to these abstinence programs, not that abstinence doesn't work.

Right now she's not, as she has many choices about her life. It remains a cost some pro-life people want to punish her with for not getting an abortion; which again, incentivizes abortion.
Let me rephrase: if abortion were prohibited through all phases of development, how would she have been "forced" to assume the cost? Couldn't the parents have done a simple search, find out the average cost of delivering babies, and take that into consideration before deciding to risk pregnancy when having sex? Isn't the cost burden in part a refelction of either parent's unwillingness to seriouslyconsider their prospects?

Men do not suffer the same stigma.
No they do not. And they shouldn't. Pregnancy does not affect men the way it affects women--that much is obvious. Mothers face a penalty because their gestation and subsequent parental duties reduce temporal flexibility, and thereby reduce their productivity. Of course they wouldn't get paid the same--wages are a direct result of marginal productivity. But be prudent: I made sure to qualify this by making reference to "Mothers" not women in general. Never-married, non-pregnant women under 30 make three percent more than their male counterparts of the same description.

Just glancing around this thread, how many insults have been thrown at women for having sex, and how many at men?
Would you mind quoting these insults?

While it would be better with a larger sample size, it's still a 5-year longitudinal study with a quasi-experimental design. So not a case of fallacious random correlation...
I neither said nor implied that it was a random correlation, but it is still a correlation. So it is up to you to use discretion and be mindful of the conclusions you draw from it.

Topic's author
#93
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Athias
...I can make the argument that many others who call themselves pro-choice, aren't really pro-choice at all. They're just pro-abortion. When you extend their premise to its logical conclusion, it is not consistently maintained. Case in point: if I were to ask, "Should a mother of a newborn bear the capacity to abandon her newborn using own her own discretion without any ramifications from the State," what would your response be? 
I don't have any problem with safe-haven laws.


The abstinence resulting from these programs seems to be sex without birth control, directly leading to more abortions.
Seem is not an argument; seem is an impression; and impressions aren't relevant.
While maybe the pregnancies are from immaculate conception, I highly doubt it. Regardless, the known result remains more abortions.


Right now she's not, as she has many choices about her life. It remains a cost some pro-life people want to punish her with for not getting an abortion; which again, incentivizes abortion.
Let me rephrase: if abortion were prohibited through all phases of development, how would she have been "forced" to assume the cost? Couldn't the parents have done a simple search, find out the average cost of delivering babies, and take that into consideration before deciding to risk pregnancy when having sex? Isn't the cost burden in part a refelction of either parent's unwillingness to seriouslyconsider their prospects?
Forced via being denied her constitutional rights to her own health care decisions. Which of course combines with pro-life politicians trying to get more teenagers pregnant through a strange form of "abstinence."


Men do not suffer the same stigma.
No they do not. And they shouldn't. ... Would you mind quoting these insults?
A sampling from just one post (obviously not yours), "stupid" "sluts" "floozy's." If I've missed the same level of insults later leveled at men for engaging in sex for purposes other than making babies, I apologize, there's only so much of bare misogyny I can read before turning away.


Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
While it would be better with a larger sample size, it's still a 5-year longitudinal study with a quasi-experimental design. So not a case of fallacious random correlation...
I neither said nor implied that it was a random correlation, but it is still a correlation. So it is up to you to use discretion and be mindful of the conclusions you draw from it.
You took a half-decade study of hundreds of cases, with confirmed statistical significance, and declared: "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc."
#94
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Barney
I don't have any problem with safe-haven laws.
That's not what I asked. This is the usual concession "pro-choice" advocates make. But I'm fairly certain, Ragnar, you understood my question. And you responded the way you did because the premise of your advocacy isn't really about "her choice"; it's about expanding the scope of state-sanctioned privileges made available to her to include abortion. If it were really about her choice, you wouldn't haven't mentioned safe-haven laws which compel her to ensure the safe custody of her newborn to a state-sanctioned, public institution. Now let's apply this reasoning to an unborn child using the logic of safe-haven laws: if the State were to decree that all abortions are legal as long as the mother can ensure the safe transfer of custody of her unborn zygote/embryo/fetus, would you, as a "pro-choice" advocate supports much in the same way support safe-haven laws?

While maybe the pregnancies are from immaculate conception, I highly doubt it.
What? Do you mean born with "original sin"? Conceived without a sire? I don't quite understand.

Regardless, the known result remains more abortions.
Result from what? That's important to understand.

Forced via being denied her constitutional rights to her own health care decisions.
That's not in the Bill of Rights, and abortions fall within the scope of the 14th amendment. If it were prohibited legally, she'd have no constitutional right to an abortion given that amendments are subject to referendum.

A sampling from just one post (obviously not yours), "stupid" "sluts" "floozy's."
Ethang5 is one of many.

You took a half-decade study of hundreds of cases, with confirmed statistical significance, and declared: "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc."
The study in and of itself provides authority to nothing. The rubric is in its capacity to substantiate its conclusions. No matter how rigorous the study is, a correlation is still a correlation. Studies aren't fortunes.
#95
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Barney
This did not age well,with immigration literally causing a pandemic and the death toll has not even started. It will reach 250,000
#96
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
Also what type of suck fuck is literally pro making murder of children legal? Especially when they justify it by saying that we should have open borders if we are against murdering children. 

#97
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
A sampling from just one post (obviously not yours), "stupid" "sluts" "floozy's."
Of course, calling people misogynists and women haters are not insults when the liberal does it.

If I've missed the same level of insults later leveled at men for engaging in sex for purposes other than making babies, 
You do this sort of fakery often, and Dread called you on it. No one has insulted women for engaging in sex. That's just semantical fakery you made up.

Women who engage in voluntary sex and then want to claim that the resultant baby is a foreign invader were insulted. Their behavior is atrocious.

You aren't concerned about the insults, but like a true liberal, your problem was that men were not similarly insulted. Men do not kill little babies growing in their bellies. The insults were to the people deserving insult for their behavior.

Insults are not supposed to be politically correct.

You have skipped through this thread hop-scotching around questions walking the line between obtuse and outright dishonesty.

You did it to BND, to Athias, and to Dread, that I noticed. Why can you not answer questions put to you? Why do you lie when you "restate" the positions of others? How come your derogatory remarks are not insults?

It's commendable that you, a mod, are taking part in a forum discussion, and you did try to respond to everyone, but the way you sacrifice honesty over your leftist dogma harms your mod street cred.

You are a much better mod than debater