marthiiina:romancatholicteen:fandomsandconservativelogic:allourlives-official:prolifeforall:And wher

marthiiina:romancatholicteen:fandomsandconservativelogic:allourlives-official:prolifeforall:And where does this statistic come from? *is a prolife activist and also a woman*This “stat” has been around since the 1990s and not once has anyone ever answered that question.National Right to Life Committee - led by Carol Tobias, a womanAmericans United for Life - led by Charmaine Yoest, a womanSusan B. Anthony List - led by Marjorie DannenfelserAmerican Life League - led by Judie Brown, a womanStudents for Life of America - led by Kristan Hawkins, a womanLive Action - led (and founded) by Lila Rose, a womanHuman Life Alliance - led by Jo Tolck, a woman.Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform - led by Stephanie Gray, a woman.Sisters of Life - all womenMarch for Life - led by Jeanne Monahan, a womanFeminists for Life - led by Serrin M. Foster, (do I even need to say it?) a womanNote: the judges who decided Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were all men.But when it comes to defending the right to life, gender shouldn’t matter. We’re talking about a fight for human rights, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, or anything else. What we all have in common is our humanity, and that’s what we’re fighting for.Also, this is a logical fallacy. You can’t say someone’s opinion is invalid because of gender, race, age, or anything they cannot control. This is sexist because it’s saying one genders opinions and beliefs matter more than another’s.It has not so much to do with their gender as it has to do with the fact that the “Life” you are demanding she keeps, is growing in her body.Affecting her body and her mind. Its she who will have to life with carrying the child, its she who will actually have to give birth to it. Defend life all you want, but be sure its life you are defending and not your own ideals. Be sure you really think about what it is that is more fair. A child needs love, a child needs care and time. It DESERVES both. If that is not possible, do you really want to put it trough hell just because you feel that all life needs to be born. Its a privilege to create and care for life. Its not a RIGHT. If the life already born is threatened by the life the could come. I choose the life that’s already here. We live in a world where a lot of people, a lot of children are without homes love and care. These need to come first. I agree that there needs to be reflection upon the moral and ethical viewpoints. Don’t make this about a freak debate about genders. To call it discriminating, sexist that men’s opinions about aborting should weigh less. Of course it should. Because this is about whether or not you should be able to tell me, and control me about my body. Its stupid to make this about sexism. This is about whether or not you should be allowed do make decisions about MY body, that triumphs mine. I can tell you right now. You are entitled to your opinion. But the day you come and try to decide about my body I will punch you in the nose. And don’t go pointing your fingers at your so called “God”. Because the moment you all started choosing which parts of the bible to take literally and which one to take metaphorically you lost all credibility in your arguments. Life is not life, until its an separate entity. Therefor the primary entity is the one who is prioritized. Been thinking about whether or not I should even respond, but hey, I guess I will say my piece. To start, I noticed you are framing the conversation around the rights of the woman who is carrying a baby, while I and presumably the bloggers above want to frame the conversation around the rights of the embyro (and every stage of development that follows), which is why they consider it a moot point to argue whether it’s a woman’s choice. So let’s start with why I think the embyro is a human, and therefore has a right to live. What makes a human? Commonly, the pro-choice arguments frame human-ness around Fetal Viability, or the ability to survive outside the womb. This has some glaring flaws. It stems from this concept that humans must be independent in order to be considered human, when in actuality there are many people living on life support, elderly people who cannot take care of themselves, people with disabilities who would not survive on their own. Does this make them less human? Of course not! In fact we live in such a social-dependent world that likely no one would survive in isolation! Therefore your argument of “life is not life, unless its an separate entity” is ultimately non-viable (although you could say that if you are already able to distinguish between the embryo and mother, they in fact are separate entities, thus making a contradictory argument on your part.)So what might be a better concept to base humanity on? Well…how about science? In order to differentiate human cells from any other substance, we simply have to examine the DNA. It is literally the code on how to make not just Homo sapiens, but each individual human! So what happens if we base our definition of “human” off of the science of DNA? When does DNA appear in a human, in order to make it “human”? DNA is implanted at the embryonic stage, when the sperm enters egg and combines chromosomes to make a new DNA gene code. If this is the case, and if we assume that all humans have a right to life, then the embryo (and every stage afterwards) has a right to live, which cannot be infringed upon by anyone else.That’s where a woman must enter the scene.I agree with you on several points here: the mother is the one who will actually have to give birth to it. A child does need love, care, and time, and furthermore deserves it! It is a privilege to create and care for life, and not a right of the parent to care for that life, should it be ultimately non-beneficial or even harmful to the child. And I’m glad you agree that there should be reflection on the moral and ethical viewpoints. It is stupid to make this about sexism, because it was never about male/female rights, but the rights of the child.An abortion terminates all of the rights of that person. They lose all power to determine the circumstantial value of their own life, including it’s harsh reality, because they were never given the opportunity to even have one.Does this mean that the woman should be required to carry it to term? Unfortunately, yes. It’s by no means ideal, but ultimately we are comparing someone’s entire lifetime to 9 months of the mother’s. Not to imply that the impact is negligible, or that the effects are in no way lasting for the mother, but the effects will most certainly be lasting for the child. We’re talking of the lesser of two evils.Do I think the government has a responsibility to care for and give compensation to that woman during her pregnancy, childbirth, and afterwards? Absolutely. Why would the government even give benefits for not just children, but for married couples? Certainly not because the government has an interest in your sex life (indeed, it shouldn’t. EVER.) but because the government has an integral interest in the care and formation of its citizens.  Do I believe the mother should be the caretaker? Not necessarily, and in many cases it’s unwise to do so.Ultimately, if we are arguing fundamental rights, the child’s right to life infringes on the mother’s rights temporarily, the mother’s decision to abort infringes on the child’s rights permanently.Now that we have said our pieces, I think it might be best to leave it at that. -- source link

More pics about