Anti-lifers

[AllieBaba]

I think the majority of the tiny handful of women who actually become pregnant as a result of rape overwhelmingly choose to have the baby.

 

[G.T.]

I think the majority of the tiny handful of women who actually become pregnant as a result of rape overwhelmingly choose to have the baby.

tHAT'S ALRIGHT, SO LONG AS THEY HAD A CHOICE. JUST IN MY OPINION, OF COURSE.

 

[JBeukema]

I think the majority of the tiny handful of women who actually become pregnant as a result of rape overwhelmingly choose to have the baby.

As cited above, only 15% of women who got regnant through rape chose to 'abort' the child's life

GT's never heard adoption, apparently, or known a woman who;s aborted, or a woman who had a child through rape.

'
Human life > 'mental anguish' for 9 months

 

[G.T.]

As cited above, only 15% of women who got regnant through rape chose to 'abort' the child's life

GT's never heard adoption, apparently, or known a woman who;s aborted, or a woman who had a child through rape.

'
Human life > 'mental anguish' for 9 months

UMM..try to know GT before you go proclaiming who I've apparently known in life. Just sayin, because in the eyes of the person who actually knows these things you just might sound ignorant on the issue of me-not-knowing. Aight?

You can have your view, and it does not offend me. Not at all, and I simply just don't think it's at all unreasonable to abort the bi-product of a rape, which is not even sentient to know what the hell life even is, was, or could have been.

Yes, fyi, I know rape victims. Yes, plural. No, I will not elaborate.

They are harmed for life, not 9 months.

 

[JBeukema]

And you would have them add to their anguish the knowledge of their deeds

 

[G.T.]

And you would have them add to their anguish the knowledge of their deeds

I would have them make their own bed, to lie in, so to speak and not have others legislate how they feel about it because they're not wearing the same pair of shoes.

 

[joeyc]

It's funny when liberals debate abortion, because it always reminds me of the gay marriage debate. Liberals will argue till they're blue in the face about the unconstitutionality of DOMA, and that there is some mandate for it (written on the back of a paper in invisible ink) in the Constitution.

But then, when you bring up abortion, and mention the purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is to state the goals and purposes of government, primary of which is to outline what protections your LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY have, and that mere matters of convenience (especially when it comes to consensual acts) alone aren't important enough to abridge that TRULY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, they start bitching and whining about autonomy and choice. Please.

 

[JBeukema]

DoMA is unconstitutional; what are you talking about, a 'mandate'?

Once again, I'll thank you not to confuse modern statists, collectivists, neoliberals, libertines, and pseudo-socialists with liberal principles.

 

[joeyc]

Yeah, you're right. It's unconstitutional. Only liberals with their awesome gadgets that can read invisible ink can see it, though. The rest of us weren't issued ours.

 

[JBeukema]

What in the blue hell are you babbling about?

 

[Gurdari]

Why must they constantly lie? They lied to SCOTUS about two women being raped, thereby spitting in the faces of all real rape victims to push their money-making libertine agenda. They tel bald lies (ravi and Anguille come to mind) about forcing women to carry when it'll kill them. They lie about the scientifically verified fact that a fetus is a human life, being both alive and human. They lie about the fact that a rape victim can take Plan B to prevent a pregnancy in the first place and that very few abortions involve rape and incest. they lie to women about their being pregnant and the development of the child inside them and rail against showing them sonograms or informing them about fetal development or adoption.


Why must they base their entire case on lies if they support a 'good thing'?

So, which side of the debate is allowed to be genralized? Both?
You could make a post about PRO-lifers and how they murder doctors... but that would be a retarded generalization.


ANTI-lifers (nice term) may actually be better described as 'pro-sovereignty' over the body - sort of a libertarian ideal, maybe.

Like "I have control over my body and anything inside it/part of it - so F*ck you" if that makes sense.

If you want to have a chat about what I am allowed to do with my own body - we would likely have a problem. Perhaps those on the other side of the debate can submit to others their own rights over their body - and we can leave it at that?


Boiled down - you cannot discuss what to do with the fetus without infringing on the Mother's 'sovereignty over her person'.

 

[JBeukema]

ANTI-lifers (nice term) may actually be better described as 'pro-sovereignty' over the body - sort of a libertarian ideal, maybe.

Wrong, moron. We're not talking about their bodies.

Like "I have control over my body and anything inside it/part of it - so F*ck you" if that makes sense.

Not if that which is inside of it is another human being.

If you want to have a chat about what I am allowed to do with my own body - we would likely have a problem.

Here you continue with the anti-lifer lies and red herrings, which were all debunked some time ago. Thank you for proving the OP to be accurate

 

[Gurdari]

ANTI-lifers (nice term) may actually be better described as 'pro-sovereignty' over the body - sort of a libertarian ideal, maybe.

Wrong, moron. We're not talking about their bodies.

Like "I have control over my body and anything inside it/part of it - so F*ck you" if that makes sense.

Not if that which is inside of it is another human being.

If you want to have a chat about what I am allowed to do with my own body - we would likely have a problem.

Here you continue with the anti-lifer lies and red herrings, which were all debunked some time ago. Thank you for proving the OP to be accurate

It seemed like we were discussing abortion. Sorry if we not.

However, if we WERE... then people bodies (the ones carrying the fetus/child/etc.) would be relevant, no?

And why would one lose their 'sovereignty' if another bieng was inside them?

Also, if there are red-herrings and lies - point them out, rhetoric only works when you have a brain-dead press corps in front of you.

 

[joeyc]

What in the blue hell are you babbling about?

I can see your sarcasm detector isn't on so I'll make it simpler for you: DoMA is constitutional, and abortion isn't.

 

[JBeukema]

One has no sovereignty over another's life.

 

[mal]

What in the blue hell are you babbling about?

I can see your sarcasm detector isn't on so I'll make it simpler for you: DoMA is constitutional, and abortion isn't.

Yep...



peace...

 

[JBeukema]

What in the blue hell are you babbling about?

I can see your sarcasm detector isn't on so I'll make it simpler for you: DoMA is constitutional, and abortion isn't.

Incorrect. DoMA is unconstitutional. For one thing, the Fed isn't given authority over the legal recognition by the States of personal relationships or family structure. For two, it violates the principles of equality and the right ton enter into legally binding contracts with any other competent adults (9th amendment).

It's perfectly constitutional for the Fed to take measures against abortion as an extension of federal laws against homicide.

 

[Gurdari]

One has no sovereignty over another's life.

Well... if that life cannot exist without being part of them physically, and is ACTUALLY part of another being's body, that is different than you or I having control over each other's lives.

I think you have to decide - do people have rights over their own bodies or not? If not - then the fetus/child doesn't either. If they do, then leave the Mother alone to make her decisions.

 

[mal]

One has no sovereignty over another's life.

It's not a Life... It's a Pesky Fetus that's Burdening and Inconveniencing a Woman...



peace...

 

[JBeukema]

One has no sovereignty over another's life.

Well... if that life cannot exist without being part of them physically, and is ACTUALLY part of another being's body, that is different than you or I having control over each other's lives.

The bold simply isn't true./ Ther is no room for debate on this, as science has already demonstrated that the child is a distinct human organism. Therefore, even if we were to accept your argument for the sake of argument, your own requisite conditions are not met.

Your fail, moron.