'Abortion' and religious strawmen

As I explained to your stupid ass...

1)deemed immoral
2)social contract..
-a) to protect the individual from theft
-b) to see the morality in 1 adhered to

All laws arise from social contract for the individual's benefit and/or see a moral standard adhered to (in turn ultimately because it is for the individual's benefit)

Many laws are put into effects because an action is deemed immoral or wrong- such as child pornography laws and abolition

only in raviland...

__________________
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

Remember, remember, the 11th of september The Gunpowder Treason and plot;
I see of no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.....

I love the way the so called pro choicers takes the liberty of removing choice not only from the father of the baby many times, but always from the baby, and using sematics to claim the baby has no rights because it is not a human.

That is illogical and ignorant, but mostly a selfish self absorbed excuse to do what is convenient.

__________________

You're a fucking retard. No offense.

Abolition and child pornography involve protecting would be victims. The unborn simply do not share the same deference as the born. You may have convinced yourself that they should, but that would require complete ignorance of pragmatic reality. Oh, wait...

__________________
PLEASE READ!: The contents of the above post is the educated opinion of the author. At times, said opinion is so strong it gets stated as fact. This is simply how the author chooses to express his deeply held opinion and should not be misconstrued to suggest more. Or it's a joke. Deal.

What ravi doesn't realize is that anti-lifers, too, wish to legislate their morality. They simply value convenience over human life and deem it immoral to 'burden' someone with their own child or even pregnancy prior to adoption.

I've explained this before


Oddly, they think it's fine to burden a man w/ 18+ years of financial burden if he doesn't want the child and the woman does but women who give their children up for adoption have no such burden

Libs and anti lifers are very illogical, it is sick at all the excuses they use. They are never fair to the child. Abortion has been the cause of much more than a baby's death, but has made the family unit obsolete, our society cannot continue having less than 1 child per family

__________________

Why? Why is it 'good' to protect 'would be "victims"'?


Answer the question...

'because anarchy doesn't work' isn't an aswer

Because anarchy doesn't work.

Yes, I think it's impractical, if not impossible to extend "rights" to the unborn.

But I'm not advocating forcing my morality on anyone else am I?

__________________
PLEASE READ!: The contents of the above post is the educated opinion of the author. At times, said opinion is so strong it gets stated as fact. This is simply how the author chooses to express his deeply held opinion and should not be misconstrued to suggest more. Or it's a joke. Deal.

Pragmatic reality? Please. Pragmatism starts with facts not imaginary set standards for one group and not the other

__________________

The so called moral decision of RvW, was forcing a whole generation to accept that killing a baby is alright and legal. Just because it is legal does not make it right. And now a whole ignorant generation of foolish indoctrinated people are running our country, and making new laws, and pushing us into a place of no return once again

__________________

is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to abort?
no?
stfu

__________________
"Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system."- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Answer the fucking question. Why is it good to 'protect' 'would be "victims"', if not ultimately on moral grounds?

Stop evading and answer the question

[quote=del;130667

is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to abort?
no?
stfu[/quote]
is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to rape?
no?
stfu


is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to murder?
no?
stfu

is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to steal?
no?
stfu

By your 'reasoning', one should not oject to rape, murder, or theft and all should be legal

Any of you anti lifers seen the movie "Children of Men"? If not I suggest you rent it and pay attention to the reality that is abortion and the lack of children in a society

__________________

I don't see it that way at all. For the record, I'm adamantly anti-abortion. I think it's immoral and I can't help judging harshly anyone that makes that choice. I just don't think it should be illegal. If some whore that neither of us know gets knocked up and wants to get her uterus scraped, what business is it of yours or mine? Really? Are you telling me that we have it so god damned good these days that we can afford to worry about what some dumb slut we don't know and don't give a shit about is doing to her body and her unborn fetus? Don't even get me started about enforcability.

__________________
PLEASE READ!: The contents of the above post is the educated opinion of the author. At times, said opinion is so strong it gets stated as fact. This is simply how the author chooses to express his deeply held opinion and should not be misconstrued to suggest more. Or it's a joke. Deal.