20 votes

Being Pro-Life Is Hard When You're A Guy!

So I was having this conversation with one of my gf's female friends I began to tell her why I'm pro-life. I said first there's really no way to regulate it! She said I thought you didn't like to regulate stuff, I said yeah on everything else! Drugs, foods, school, but not murder! I said look there are doctors who follow the rules and abort fetuses that aren't that old( which I still think is disgusting), but there are some doctors who can care less and would abort a baby who's 6months or 7 or 8! She said that doesn't happen Juano and I said, but I've heard stories, she said exactly "HEARD" stories, that doesn't make it true. So I went on my IPhone and showed her a story, anyway she begins to cry and says she has gotten 2 abortions her self and says Juano you would never know because you're a guy! She said there was no way she could have taken care of those kids, she's struggling as it is now! And I said I do understand, but you would of been a good mother, your a great person! Then she says but imagine how different my life would be? I said well yeah duh lol. I said if you moved to NYC your life would be different too, she says no it wouldn't! I'm single I could do what ever I want. I said why didn't you just put them up for adoption? She says she didn't want to because she felt that she would end up wanting to keep the baby when she saw it and that just wasn't an option. She says Juano what if a girls rape or incest occurs? I said what about it? She goes comeon! Your not thinking logically! I said no your not! The girls already a victom, you want the baby to be one too? She pauses for a long time, then says I see what you're saying Juano, but.... but... Idk. I guess that's just how I feel! Lol I said I use to think just like you until I found Dr. Paul! I said if you met a kid and someone told you hey he or she is a product of a rape would you treat that kid any different? She says of course not! And I said, I don't think you would if it were your baby either! She said Juano you're right! She goes I never looked at it like that! Then we just kept on drinking lol.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Wow your so right! thats why

Wow your so right! thats why I let people talk and try not to yell. If I feel things are getting weird, I'll just change the subject lol.

juan maldonado

I don't find it hard because

I believe in the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion if her health is or could be seriously endangered by having the baby. Even the Catholic Church, which is the most pro-life entity in the world allows for one or two exceptions in cases of serious complications. I don't believe a woman should be forced to give birth knowing it will or most likely could permanently damage her in some way. However, health issues only make up 5%-6% of abortion cases. I believe abortion should be banned for all other reasons other than health/life-of-the-mother cases and the penalties should be crippling on abortion doctors who perform abortions for reasons other than the health of the mother.

The Church permits surgical

The Church permits surgical procedures that can unintentionally result in the death of the fetus, but direct abortions are never permitted. For example, surgery done on a woman experiencing an ectopic pregnancy is permitted, even though it may very well kill the fetus, because the intention is to save the life of the mother and the death of the fetus is the indirect consequence of the procedure. It's called the principle of double effect. Regardless, there are no medical conditions where an abortion is necessary and the Good Doctor himself has said so.

That's what I was referring to.

Surgery done on a woman experiencing an ectopic pregnancy is direct abortion because the doctor and mother both know that when the portion of the damaged fallopian tube is removed, the baby will have to be removed as well. I see no difference between this procedure and removing the baby form the tube or using methotrexate. It is a sad, unfortunate situation and should always be up to the woman if she wants to have it done or take her chances. Most Catholics probably don't think all three alternatives are the same. But, I see that problematic situation the same as when a family tells doctors its' okay to pull the feeding tubes on their loved one because their family member on tubes had told them he/she didn't want to have to live on tubes if ever put in that situation. In that case, I believe it would be morally acceptable to allow the family to have him/her given a lethal injection rather than starve to death.

It's not hard for me

I just see it as being responsible for your actions and having a decent respect for human life. I'm not even religious. I'm agnostic. But I understand that we (humans) are more rare than anything else in this universe. That the organization of matter in human form does not come about by accident, and once a mind emerges within the womb (after a sufficient number of neural connections have been established, and it's not hard to determine when that happens given our technology these days ~3 months) then you have to be a heartless psychopath to not consider the life that is growing inside of you. If they tell me that I don't understand because I'm a guy, I just say that they don't understand because they're arrogant and selfish.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself." - Thomas Jefferson

My mother

makes it easier for me as a male. Though our entire family can argue against abortion on traditional moral grounds, we can on other people's terms as well. WHen someone says I am not qualified to have an opinion on the topic, as I have never given birth(never will, since I'm a dude), I will tell them my mother feels that they are unqualified to have an opinion, since (most of the time) most people only have a couple of kids, whereas my mother has had eight. According to my mother's logic, it is no excuse to say, if you have x amount of children, that it would be too hard to have y amount of kids, since they cannot know what is is like to have another, and if we follow the first line of logic, that a male cannot have an opinion, having never given birth, neither can a female who is giving birth, whether it is the first or eight kid they are having, since they cannot know what having eight kids is like when they have only had seven.

Pro-choicers often say men shouldn't have a say about abortion

Of course, they gleefully accept the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade which was made entirely by men

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Brilliant point!

I never considered that before.

Dagny
"I don't know if the world is full of smart men bluffing
or imbeciles who mean it."

Great job.....

People actually do eventually come around to LOGIC....at least most people... We are fed so much BULLSHITE all the time on TV and through our "so called" leaders....it is tough to break through sometimes...

But - great job...

The revolution will be won "one mind at a time!"

Right to live.

I care more for the individual rights of the baby than the woman who chose to have sex than want out of the responsibility. I do personally believe however that there is a small grace period a after initial conception where the fetus is not fully matured enough to be considered a baby. I understand the fact it's the woman that has the burden of carrying the child, but it does weird me out that some women take so much pride in having the right to kill their baby.

How to change the subject.

I am not a woman nor have I had an abortion or a baby. Judgement on what is right or wrong should be decided by a group of peers. As a man I don't have peer status to decide what is right on this issue.

Can I have another Martini please?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Then

I suppose women cannot have an opinion on the morality of deadbeats who screw everything with a hole in it and run away, leaving someone pregnant, since they cannot know what it is like to have such a high testosterone flow.

Read the title, Mr. Farmer. "How to change the subject."

First off, I believe in a right to life. Please leave me alone about screwing, deadbeats and testosterone.

It is sometimes counterproductive to have battles with females. If we hope to win over half of the female population that is "right to choose", it is stupid and idiotic to think that you or I would be able to change a "one issue" mind at a cocktail party.

I would suggest that millions of women have been disillusioned by obnoxious Right to Lifers stupidly attacking their lovingly held belief systems.

----------------------The Ransberger Pivot
by Barry Kayton

Ever heard of the Ransberger Pivot? Invented in 1982 by Ray Ransberger and Marshall Fritz, the Ransberger Pivot is a communication principle you can use to find common ground with an intellectual opponent, and swing an audience to your point of view.

Imagine you're talking amongst a small group of people, none of whom understand or appreciate the value of free enterprise. The conversation turns to education and you suggest that most of the education problems would disappear if government privatizes all public schools and completely deregulates education.

A woman responds, "Be serious! You don't really believe that, do you?"

At this point your blood pressure starts to rise, of course, and this is where the Ransberger Pivot is useful. There are three steps to the Ransberger Pivot.

Step one: stay calm and listen to what the questioner is asking!

In this case, the woman is probably more bewildered than belligerent.

Step two: ask yourself, "What is this person really concerned about? What does she really want?" Make an intelligent and thought-provoking response to the question.

In this case, the woman is incredulous that you would suggest doing away with public education, because throughout her life she has been led to believe that without government most children would go uneducated.

So what does she want? She wants children to be educated. And what she really wants is some measure of certainty that children -- especially disadvantaged children -- are well-educated.

Step three: if you want the same thing (and often you will), share your concern for the values you and your questioner have in common.

You, too, want children to be well-educated. And you know that a totally free and unregulated market in the provision of education will very quickly lead to fantastic progress in the general standard of education. So you could say, "I want to make sure that all children have the opportunity to get a high-quality education. In fact, I want children to be better educated than they are now."

At this point you could introduce an analogy to show how private provision of products and services leads to competition and better quality. You could also point out that throughout the world non-government schools virtually always provide better education than government schools. And so on.

The Ransberger Pivot is a transition or prelude to your factual response. It prepares your questioner -- and those on the sidelines who are listening -- for your answer, by showing them the common ground between your position and theirs. The Ransberger Pivot swings the conversation very quickly away from a heated exchange of opposing world views, towards an intelligent discussion of the most effective and efficient means of meeting common objectives or ends.

The Pivot diffuses hostility and builds harmony by showing that you share the questioner's concerns. The questioner and audience are then more likely to listen to -- and hear -- your answer, meaning that you are more likely to persuade them to your point of view.

There's only one disadvantage to The Ransberger Pivot: it doesn't come naturally. You need to practise it to make it second nature. But it is very effective. Why don't you give it a try?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Are the majority of

Are the majority of libertarians Pro-Life?

juan maldonado

Life or Choice

Back around 1992 I handled the Illinois Libertarian Party's database and supervised data entry for voting history gotten from the individual county court clerks offices. That was a year the Libertarian Party qualified for a primary. About 45% of the 1850 people who voted LPI that year had a previous Democrat voting history. About 40% had prior voting history for Republicans.

Nationally, gut feeling is about half and half on right to life or right to choose.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

I Think It Is An Issue That Splits Us

Personally I favor the right to EARLY TERM abortion, with no federal funding.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

how early? and what's to stop

how early? and what's to stop a doctor from doing woman that5 months or 6months pregnant?

juan maldonado

Probably Three Months

But to form a more precise view, I'd have to research prenatal development.

I don't know how best to protect privacy and enforce the limits on the time period. Perhaps record review with patient name deleted.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

It might split us up

Yet I think that it is a topic that should be discussed. Despite the fact that we are all for Ron Paul(or maybe this should make the incentive even stronger), we must discuss issues, lest we become mind numbed fools like party insiders.

I highly doubt that it will be that detrimental to discuss issues every now and then, as, from my point of view, Ron Paul supporters by and large seem more focused on issues, our rights, the proper sphere of government, the necessity of checks and balances(including allowing the states some form of check on the power of federal government), the constitution and the negative effects of broad interpretation of it as to what powers the federal government has. As such, I welcome this post.

I Agree

Communication is rarely a bad thing.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Here's the article I showed

Here's the article I showed her in case anybody was wondering. It's sick y'all! Anytime i start talking pro-life with woman I kinda feel like they think its not my place to feel this way! Idk why i feel that way. I just get that vibe ! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/01/19/kermit--g... 0976.html

juan maldonado

Hilarious photo

The link is broken, but what a hilarious photo of Obama! That's what he'd look like if Ron Paul wins the nomination then goes on to beat the snot out of him in the debates and the general election.

Your link is broken.

The article sounds interesting. Could you post the correct link? Thanks.

Edit: Actually, I figured it out. I guess you added a space somehow: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/kermit--gosnell-cha...

sorry man! did you read the

sorry man! did you read the article? how crazy is that?

juan maldonado