France passes law imposing up to two years prison for running pro-life websites

[Vastator]

Abortions are a woman's private business.

Bull shit. All men are created equal... its in our constitution. Sperm hits the egg... created.

Adopt an embryo then. Until then, it's not your business.

Yeah. It is...

No, it isn't...

No more than your vasectemy is my business.

You're a fucking moron. But you already knew that. What you didn't seem to know; is that during a successful vasectomy, no one dies... big difference.

 

[Coyote]

Abortions are a woman's private business.

Bull shit. All men are created equal... its in our constitution. Sperm hits the egg... created.

Adopt an embryo then. Until then, it's not your business.

Yeah. It is...

No, it isn't...

No more than your vasectemy is my business.

Does a vasectomy result in the lifeless body of a child?

An abortion does.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Coyote]

Abortions are a woman's private business.

Bull shit. All men are created equal... its in our constitution. Sperm hits the egg... created.

Adopt an embryo then. Until then, it's not your business.

Yeah. It is...

No, it isn't...

No more than your vasectemy is my business.

You're a fucking moron. But you already knew that. What you didn't seem to know; is that during a successful vasectomy, no one dies... big difference.

No one dies in an abortion because no one exists until birth.

 

[Vastator]

Abortions are a woman's private business.

Bull shit. All men are created equal... its in our constitution. Sperm hits the egg... created.

Adopt an embryo then. Until then, it's not your business.

Are children's rights contingent upon whether or not we are willing to adopt them now?

Where is that written in the Constitution?

Where does the Constitution refer to embryos?

where does the constitution mention ni$$ers?

 

[Chuz Life]

Abortions are a woman's private business.

Bull shit. All men are created equal... its in our constitution. Sperm hits the egg... created.

Adopt an embryo then. Until then, it's not your business.

Are children's rights contingent upon whether or not we are willing to adopt them now?

Where is that written in the Constitution?

Where does the Constitution refer to embryos?

The Constitution says "all persons."

That's about as INCLUSIVE as it gets.... and it would include "persons" who are in any and EVERY stage of life, growth and development.

Well. . .

At least, to an intellectually honest person, it would.

 

[Chuz Life]

Bull shit. All men are created equal... its in our constitution. Sperm hits the egg... created.

Adopt an embryo then. Until then, it's not your business.

Yeah. It is...

No, it isn't...

No more than your vasectemy is my business.

You're a fucking moron. But you already knew that. What you didn't seem to know; is that during a successful vasectomy, no one dies... big difference.

No one dies in an abortion because no one exists until birth.

Your ignorance about that claim has already been defeated, not only by our Fetal HOMICIDE laws but by Roe v Wade itself.

 

[eflatminor]

The left is constantly battling free speech and no doubt they want such a law in america too.

France passes law imposing up to two years prison for running pro-life websites

feb 17 2017 PARIS, France, February 17, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The French National Assembly has adopted legislation to make what it calls “spreading misleading information” about abortion punishable with up to a two-year prison sentence and a fine.

The law specifically targets “electronic” and “online” means of spreading information with the intention of dissuading women from ending their pregnancy, but its wording is not restrictive. By and large, any person or group aiming to call public attention to the dangers and risks of abortion will be potentially at risk of prosecution.

It is the latest in a series of pro-abortion laws that have made “voluntary interruption of pregnancy,” as the French euphemism goes, a purely elective and 100 percent publicly-funded “fundamental right” since socialist François Hollande came into power five years ago.

[/QUOTE

OP is a lie.

They aren't imprisoning people for running pro-life websites.

They are making it illegal to LIE about abortion risks.

Lie defied by the likes of you?

Pass.

 

[Coyote]

Abortions are a woman's private business.

Bull shit. All men are created equal... its in our constitution. Sperm hits the egg... created.

Adopt an embryo then. Until then, it's not your business.

Are children's rights contingent upon whether or not we are willing to adopt them now?

Where is that written in the Constitution?

Where does the Constitution refer to embryos?

The Constitution says "all persons."

That's about as INCLUSIVE as it gets.... and it would include "persons" who are in any and EVERY stage of life, growth and development.

Well. . .

At least, to an intellectually honest person, it would.

When a blastocyst is legally defined as a "person" then let me know.

Until then, what a woman does with her own body is no one's business but her own.

 

[Coyote]

Adopt an embryo then. Until then, it's not your business.

Yeah. It is...

No, it isn't...

No more than your vasectemy is my business.

You're a fucking moron. But you already knew that. What you didn't seem to know; is that during a successful vasectomy, no one dies... big difference.

No one dies in an abortion because no one exists until birth.

Your ignorance about that claim has already been defeated, not only by our Fetal HOMICIDE laws but by Roe v Wade itself.

Nothing is stopping you from setting up an emergency blastocyst adoption program to save them. But for some strange reason, there is no move in that direction.

 

[Chuz Life]

Bull shit. All men are created equal... its in our constitution. Sperm hits the egg... created.

Adopt an embryo then. Until then, it's not your business.

Are children's rights contingent upon whether or not we are willing to adopt them now?

Where is that written in the Constitution?

Where does the Constitution refer to embryos?

The Constitution says "all persons."

That's about as INCLUSIVE as it gets.... and it would include "persons" who are in any and EVERY stage of life, growth and development.

Well. . .

At least, to an intellectually honest person, it would.

When a blastocyst is legally defined as a "person" then let me know.

Until then, what a woman does with her own body is no one's business but her own.

Sad that a child has to live long enough and develop past the point where an idiot like you can't deny them anymore - before you will accept the fact that they are a child.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yeah. It is...

No, it isn't...

No more than your vasectemy is my business.

You're a fucking moron. But you already knew that. What you didn't seem to know; is that during a successful vasectomy, no one dies... big difference.

No one dies in an abortion because no one exists until birth.

Your ignorance about that claim has already been defeated, not only by our Fetal HOMICIDE laws but by Roe v Wade itself.

Nothing is stopping you from setting up an emergency blastocyst adoption program to save them. But for some strange reason, there is no move in that direction.

Appeal to ridicule noted.

 

[deannalw]

Abortions are a woman's private business.

Abortions are women commiting murder

 

[Coyote]

Adopt an embryo then. Until then, it's not your business.

Are children's rights contingent upon whether or not we are willing to adopt them now?

Where is that written in the Constitution?

Where does the Constitution refer to embryos?

The Constitution says "all persons."

That's about as INCLUSIVE as it gets.... and it would include "persons" who are in any and EVERY stage of life, growth and development.

Well. . .

At least, to an intellectually honest person, it would.

When a blastocyst is legally defined as a "person" then let me know.

Until then, what a woman does with her own body is no one's business but her own.

Sad that a child has to live long enough and develop past the point where an idiot like you can't deny them anymore - before you will accept the fact that they are a child.

I don't think it's sad.

This is a problem of competing rights: the rights of a woman to her own body, and the rights of the developing POTENTIAL life inside her.

Who's rights are greater? At no time should the woman's rights be less than. But at some point the developing life inside her begins to have it's own rights. Most likely we disagree on when those rights begin.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yeah. It is...

No, it isn't...

No more than your vasectemy is my business.

You're a fucking moron. But you already knew that. What you didn't seem to know; is that during a successful vasectomy, no one dies... big difference.

No one dies in an abortion because no one exists until birth.

Your ignorance about that claim has already been defeated, not only by our Fetal HOMICIDE laws but by Roe v Wade itself.

Nothing is stopping you from setting up an emergency blastocyst adoption program to save them. But for some strange reason, there is no move in that direction.

maybe because that would be an idiotic and ass backward way to address the problem when it's a LEGAL / Constitutional problem that has to be addressed first and "adopting" children in ANY stage of development isn't going to affect that change.

 

[Coyote]

No, it isn't...

No more than your vasectemy is my business.

You're a fucking moron. But you already knew that. What you didn't seem to know; is that during a successful vasectomy, no one dies... big difference.

No one dies in an abortion because no one exists until birth.

Your ignorance about that claim has already been defeated, not only by our Fetal HOMICIDE laws but by Roe v Wade itself.

Nothing is stopping you from setting up an emergency blastocyst adoption program to save them. But for some strange reason, there is no move in that direction.

Appeal to ridicule noted.

It's not ridicule.

There is little to no action devoted to saving embryos. There is no line up of women offering their own bodies to house them. Fact.

It always comes down to forcing an unwilling woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

[Vastator]

Are children's rights contingent upon whether or not we are willing to adopt them now?

Where is that written in the Constitution?

Where does the Constitution refer to embryos?

The Constitution says "all persons."

That's about as INCLUSIVE as it gets.... and it would include "persons" who are in any and EVERY stage of life, growth and development.

Well. . .

At least, to an intellectually honest person, it would.

When a blastocyst is legally defined as a "person" then let me know.

Until then, what a woman does with her own body is no one's business but her own.

Sad that a child has to live long enough and develop past the point where an idiot like you can't deny them anymore - before you will accept the fact that they are a child.

I don't think it's sad.

This is a problem of competing rights: the rights of a woman to her own body, and the rights of the developing POTENTIAL life inside her.

Who's rights are greater? At no time should the woman's rights be less than. But at some point the developing life inside her begins to have it's own rights. Most likely we disagree on when those rights begin.

Yo didn't answer my constitution question...

 

[AvgGuyIA]

They are making it illegal to LIE about abortion risks

There are many risks to an abortion. Babies risk dying in an abortion, for one.

 

[Chuz Life]

Are children's rights contingent upon whether or not we are willing to adopt them now?

Where is that written in the Constitution?

Where does the Constitution refer to embryos?

The Constitution says "all persons."

That's about as INCLUSIVE as it gets.... and it would include "persons" who are in any and EVERY stage of life, growth and development.

Well. . .

At least, to an intellectually honest person, it would.

When a blastocyst is legally defined as a "person" then let me know.

Until then, what a woman does with her own body is no one's business but her own.

Sad that a child has to live long enough and develop past the point where an idiot like you can't deny them anymore - before you will accept the fact that they are a child.

I don't think it's sad.

This is a problem of competing rights: the rights of a woman to her own body, and the rights of the developing POTENTIAL life inside her.

Who's rights are greater? At no time should the woman's rights be less than. But at some point the developing life inside her begins to have it's own rights. Most likely we disagree on when those rights begin.

You are being so dense and simplistic, I have to believe it is intentionally so.

Let me educate you on something.

Potential human beings do not "physically" exist. If they do exist, they are no longer just a "potential."

A child in the womb in ANY stage of development DOES exist. I can share pictures if you need them.

So your pap about them only being a "potential" human being is so easily disproven, it's a waste of time to consider it. As, AGAIN, we already have fetal HOMICIDE laws that recognize and DEFINE "children in the womb" in "any stage of development" as such.

You are more than welcome to TRY to overturn those laws and definitions... but until you are able to do so, we are going to continue to build on those laws to overturn Roe v Wade.

 

[Coyote]

Where does the Constitution refer to embryos?

The Constitution says "all persons."

That's about as INCLUSIVE as it gets.... and it would include "persons" who are in any and EVERY stage of life, growth and development.

Well. . .

At least, to an intellectually honest person, it would.

When a blastocyst is legally defined as a "person" then let me know.

Until then, what a woman does with her own body is no one's business but her own.

Sad that a child has to live long enough and develop past the point where an idiot like you can't deny them anymore - before you will accept the fact that they are a child.

I don't think it's sad.

This is a problem of competing rights: the rights of a woman to her own body, and the rights of the developing POTENTIAL life inside her.

Who's rights are greater? At no time should the woman's rights be less than. But at some point the developing life inside her begins to have it's own rights. Most likely we disagree on when those rights begin.

You are being so dense and simplistic, i have to believe it is intentionally so.

Let me educate you on something.

Potential human beings do not "physically" exist. If they do exist, they are no longer just a "potential."

A child in the womb in ANY stage of development DOES exist. I can share pictures if you need them.

So your pap about them only being a "potential" human being is so easily disproven, it's a waste of time to consider it. As, AGAIN, we already have fetal HOMICIDE laws that recognize and DEFINE "children in the womb" in "any stage of development" as such.

You are more than welcome to TRY to overturn those laws and definitions... but until you are able to do so, we are going to continue to build on those laws to overturn Roe v Wade.

Until it's born, it's a potential life.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Abortions are a woman's private business.

^^^ The BIG lie.