The real issue in the abortion debate

[buckeye45_73]

How many babies have you adopted?

What's that you say? Zero?

Odd, I thought you cared about the well being of the baby.

Oh, that was all just bullshit. Got it.

So what you're hypocritcal on every issue. How many choices have you protected today....uh ZERO

Actually I'm in the process dipshit. It takes FOREEVER in the US due to YOUR regulations, it's one of the reasons that adoptions have gone way up in foregin countries, but you dont know shit and you're a partisan hack.

You could have just said 0 and been honest about it.

I did say zero, how many choices you protected today. I'm sure you're pro-choice... yeah sure you are.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

should abortion be allowed in the case of rape?

 

[buckeye45_73]

How many babies have you adopted?

What's that you say? Zero?

Odd, I thought you cared about the well being of the baby.

Oh, that was all just bullshit. Got it.

So what you're hypocritcal on every issue. How many choices have you protected today....uh ZERO

Actually I'm in the process dipshit. It takes FOREEVER in the US due to YOUR regulations, it's one of the reasons that adoptions have gone way up in foregin countries, but you dont know shit and you're a partisan hack.

I wish you luck.



But will also point out the irony that righties want to throw people in prison for terminating pregnancies but don't believe the adoption market should be regulated.

wow.

Do you think human traffickers have an easier or harder time of "adopting" slaves in a regulated market?

Wow you are stupid. I didnt say it should be regulated, but why have to a foreign country. My sisterinlaws sister just adopted a kid from Russia, she cant have any and the US takes WAAAAAAAAAAAY too long and is very invasive. So that is why adopting the African baby became a big deal, but you dont know about that, because you dont know anything.
But Ooh I've already kicked your ass on nuking japan and on this topic.
You keep saying should we do it for rape, I said yes, so stop asking. I called your bluff, and you keep saying the same thing. Can you not think outside your talking points?

 

[buckeye45_73]

should abortion be allowed in the case of rape?

I said yes you fucking dumb ass.

WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL BABIES?

 

[tjvh]

Look, I'm against Abortion. I do think in the case of rape, I can make an exception. But as for arbitrarily killing unborn children for the sake of convenience... Forget it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So what you're hypocritcal on every issue. How many choices have you protected today....uh ZERO

Actually I'm in the process dipshit. It takes FOREEVER in the US due to YOUR regulations, it's one of the reasons that adoptions have gone way up in foregin countries, but you dont know shit and you're a partisan hack.

I wish you luck.



But will also point out the irony that righties want to throw people in prison for terminating pregnancies but don't believe the adoption market should be regulated.

wow.

Do you think human traffickers have an easier or harder time of "adopting" slaves in a regulated market?

Wow you are stupid. I didnt say it should be regulated, but why have to a foreign country. My sisterinlaws sister just adopted a kid from Russia, she cant have any and the US takes WAAAAAAAAAAAY too long and is very invasive.

And it has nothing to do with the demand for infant adoptions in the U.S. exceeding the supply by a couple orders of magnitude? I had a girlfriend once who gave a baby up for adoption (not mine) - she had dozens upon dozens of families to choose from, most of whom had been waiting for years and years.

So that is why adopting the African baby became a big deal, but you dont know about that, because you dont know anything.

Yeay. Only went through the process of pregnancy (from month 4), birth, and adoption with a girl - but I know nothing about adoption because she's not from Africa.

You keep saying should we do it for rape, I said yes, so stop asking.

IMPORTANT QUESTION:

How do we know which women are rape victims and which ones are just claiming they are rape victims so they can get a legal abortion?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Look, I'm against Abortion. I do think in the case of rape, I can make an exception. But as for arbitrarily killing unborn children for the sake of convenience... Forget it.

How do we know which women are actual rape victims and which ones are just claiming they are so they can get a legal abortion?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Note how the right wing runs like chickens when it comes down to the practical details of how their proposed policy changes would be implemented.

The anti-choice crowd wants to make abortion illegal. Most of them, it seems, would have an exception for rape or incest. They can't articulate how this exception would actually be implemented in law. How do we know which women are actual rape victims and which are just claiming to be rape victims in order to get an abortion?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well?

Any anti-choicer got any details on how a rape only exception would actually be implemented in law?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Anyone?

I'm not trying to pin anyone to a wall - I just wanna know if you've actually thought about it.

I can only think of two ways at all to implement a rape exception - both of which are not practical in the real world. You could either a) require a conviction of rape. This is obviously nor practical as most of the time, if a conviction even came, it would be too late to actually get an abortion. Or you could b) take the woman's word. If you can later prove she lied - you can charge her with a crime. This is also not practical as it would be impossible in most cases in which a woman claimed to have been raped when she wasn't to prove the woman lied. So the abortion ban would de-facto not exist if all a woman would have to do is say she was raped.




So you can either have abortion or not. There is no practical rape exception. If abortion is truly banned its banned 100% and rape victims will be forced under penalty of law to bear their rapists child.

 

[Borillar]

See? He can't look at it. He wants you to look away, too.

When GWB was president and the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, why was abortion a non issue?

Where did you get that idea? Do you not recall Bush's opposition to stem cell research and cloning and his defense of the unborn?

Then why didn't the Republicans make abortion illegal? They had the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. Could it be that the Republicans don't really give a shit about abortion? Could it be that they just like to be able to trot it out as a wedge issue every 4 years to get the religious reich fired up? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Look, I'm against Abortion. I do think in the case of rape, I can make an exception. But as for arbitrarily killing unborn children for the sake of convenience... Forget it.

He's too dumb to understand the difference

 

[buckeye45_73]

When GWB was president and the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, why was abortion a non issue?

Where did you get that idea? Do you not recall Bush's opposition to stem cell research and cloning and his defense of the unborn?

Then why didn't the Republicans make abortion illegal? They had the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. Could it be that the Republicans don't really give a shit about abortion? Could it be that they just like to be able to trot it out as a wedge issue every 4 years to get the religious reich fired up? Inquiring minds want to know.

WEll your so right, so it shouldnt be an issue for you, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The real issue in the abortion debate is the question of whose rights trump whose - do the rights of a fetus trump the rights of a woman, or vice versa?

Choosing the former places the fetus as a higher citizen above women, thus subjugating them to second class citizenry - enjoying only part of the rights of citizenship. Choosing the latter preserves the first class citizenship of women and



That's pretty much it. The right claims they want "limited" government yet they don't believe government's limit stops at a person's reproductive function. If government can criminalize abortion in the name of protecting the fetus, what's to stop them from banning alcohol consumption for all women between puberty and menopause who have not been rendered sterile by surgery? Any of those women could be carrying child without knowing it, thus to allow them to consume alcohol would create the very real risk that an "innocent human being" is being poisoned by its mother. Will the right stand for it?

If the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother - what's to stop the government from compelling women to receive pre-natal treatment in accordance with government guidelines - for the purposes of protecting the innocent fetus? What's to stop government from deciding any pregnant woman who consumes even one drop of alcohol needs to be confined and surpervised until birth ?(even though most docs agree very light consumption late in the pregnancy is no problem)


The fact is what the right wants is for the rights of a fetus to exceed the rights of a woman. Based on that idealogy, government would be justified in doing anything it needed to protect the life of a fetus - from regulating the diets of all women who are fertile and sexually active to requiring them to attend natural child birth classes, if the government decides that will best protect the life of the fetus - or perhaps, instead, forcing women to receive epidurals against their will - if government decides that will best protect the life of a fetus.


The right only wants limited government when it comes to business. When it comes to the restriction of the most basic personal liberty to own one's own body - they do not.

The real issue here is you think rights are contingent on age.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The real issue in the abortion debate is the question of whose rights trump whose - do the rights of a fetus trump the rights of a woman, or vice versa?

Choosing the former places the fetus as a higher citizen above women, thus subjugating them to second class citizenry - enjoying only part of the rights of citizenship. Choosing the latter preserves the first class citizenship of women and



That's pretty much it. The right claims they want "limited" government yet they don't believe government's limit stops at a person's reproductive function. If government can criminalize abortion in the name of protecting the fetus, what's to stop them from banning alcohol consumption for all women between puberty and menopause who have not been rendered sterile by surgery? Any of those women could be carrying child without knowing it, thus to allow them to consume alcohol would create the very real risk that an "innocent human being" is being poisoned by its mother. Will the right stand for it?

If the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother - what's to stop the government from compelling women to receive pre-natal treatment in accordance with government guidelines - for the purposes of protecting the innocent fetus? What's to stop government from deciding any pregnant woman who consumes even one drop of alcohol needs to be confined and surpervised until birth ?(even though most docs agree very light consumption late in the pregnancy is no problem)


The fact is what the right wants is for the rights of a fetus to exceed the rights of a woman. Based on that idealogy, government would be justified in doing anything it needed to protect the life of a fetus - from regulating the diets of all women who are fertile and sexually active to requiring them to attend natural child birth classes, if the government decides that will best protect the life of the fetus - or perhaps, instead, forcing women to receive epidurals against their will - if government decides that will best protect the life of a fetus.


The right only wants limited government when it comes to business. When it comes to the restriction of the most basic personal liberty to own one's own body - they do not.

The real issue here is you think rights are contingent on age.

Ok those questions from Oooh shows his thinking, Republicans dont want to micromanage people's lives, it's basically if you drink and make the baby retarded, it's yours, grats to you. Most people wouldnt do this, because they're not as dumb as Oooh.
All we're saying is if you get pregant, have the kid, do what you need to have it, if you dont, it's still yours, so I'd take care of it.
Most republicans understand this and I think most democrats do as well, but liberals always want the easy escape hatch.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The real issue in the abortion debate....

.....has been.....

......SETTLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

. . . . . . ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Unlocking The Youth Vote​

. . . . . . ​