sakinago
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 5,320
- 1,632
- 280
Right...that’s why Peter Thiel got a standing ovation at the GOP national convention right after saying he’s proud to be gay...but according to the left abortion isn’t wrong, so it shouldn’t be a problem for you if there were a gay test and republicans hated the gays that much. Right? I thought it was a women’s choice? You wanna field that question for us Deanrd?If there were a genetic test for gayness, Republicans would approve of abortion.Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.
Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.
The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.
You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.
Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.
Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.
Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.
And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.
And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.
So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”
Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.
It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?
Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.
The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.
Republicans hate gays that much.