The real issue in the abortion debate

If it can survive on its own than I would consider it human.

So those things on life support in hospitals are not human. Those things walking around with pacemakers, not human. All those things which depend on machines to live, not human.

I'm not surprised you consider women to be on the same level as pacemakers and life support machines.

Yet you refuse to state your clear opinion that you believe the rights of the woman are subjugate to the rights of the fetus occupying her womb.
 
Is a 24 week old fetus not a human? The courts and the vast majority of Americans disagree.

If it can survive on its own than I would consider it human.

How many newborns do you know that can survive on their own? Answer! Not a damn one of them..so in your peabrained logic a human has never been born.

Its quite clear from context that by "survive on its own" RDD_1210 meant "survive as a biological distinct organism"
 

Which part of the Constitution extends legal protection of the right to life to the unborn?

Do you think all those state laws which convict people for fetal homicide are unconstitutional?

Fetal Homicide State Laws

Even Roe v Wade extended legal protection of the right to life to the unborn. Maybe you should read it sometime.



Which part of the Constitution extends legal protection of the right to life to the unborn?
 
So Liberals:
1)Abort kids-they're just a choice
2)heckle them when they sing- especially with patriotic or religious themes
3)promote pedophillia by interruping commisions trying to do something about the child sex industry

Yeah, I'd say they're waging a war on children
 
So Liberals:
1)Abort kids-they're just a choice
2)heckle them when they sing- especially with patriotic or religious themes
3)promote pedophillia by interruping commisions trying to do something about the child sex industry

Yeah, I'd say they're waging a war on children

When did you stop raping children?
 
If it can survive on its own than I would consider it human.

So those things on life support in hospitals are not human. Those things walking around with pacemakers, not human. All those things which depend on machines to live, not human.

I'm not surprised you consider women to be on the same level as pacemakers and life support machines.

Yet you refuse to state your clear opinion that you believe the rights of the woman are subjugate to the rights of the fetus occupying her womb.

The right of the woman to party does not trump the right to the life of the unborn. Even the liberal Supreme Court decided there comes a point where this is true. So if you have a problem with this, take it up with them.

This has been explained to you time and time again, yet you persist in your logically false dilemna.
 
Last edited:
If it can survive on its own than I would consider it human.

So those things on life support in hospitals are not human. Those things walking around with pacemakers, not human. All those things which depend on machines to live, not human.

True, but they are alive already and were previously self sustaining. A fetus was never self sustaining in the past.

Where do you draw the line? Should a woman having her period be considered a murderer? Should male masturbation be illegal?
 
So those things on life support in hospitals are not human. Those things walking around with pacemakers, not human. All those things which depend on machines to live, not human.

I'm not surprised you consider women to be on the same level as pacemakers and life support machines.

Yet you refuse to state your clear opinion that you believe the rights of the woman are subjugate to the rights of the fetus occupying her womb.

The right of the woman to party does not trump the right to life.
What the fuck does the right to party have anything to do with anything? Now you're just babbling like a total moron.

Even the liberal Supreme Court decided there comes a point where this is true. This has been explained to you time and time again, yet you persist in your logically false dilemna.

Really? Which "liberal Supreme Court" addresses the "right to party" ?

:cuckoo:
 
So those things on life support in hospitals are not human. Those things walking around with pacemakers, not human. All those things which depend on machines to live, not human.

I'm not surprised you consider women to be on the same level as pacemakers and life support machines.

Yet you refuse to state your clear opinion that you believe the rights of the woman are subjugate to the rights of the fetus occupying her womb.

The right of the woman to party does not trump the right to life. Even the liberal Supreme Court decided there comes a point where this is true. This has been explained to you time and time again, yet you persist in your logically false dilemna.

Right to party. LOL. Typical move to try and paint an entire group based upon the worst example you can think of. It's just like the case against welfare, stamps, unemployment, etc..."They're all deadbeats because I know of someone who games the system!"
 
If it can survive on its own than I would consider it human.

So those things on life support in hospitals are not human. Those things walking around with pacemakers, not human. All those things which depend on machines to live, not human.

True, but they are alive already and were previously self sustaining. A fetus was never self sustaining in the past.

Where do you draw the line? Should a woman having her period be considered a murderer? Should male masturbation be illegal?



An human egg cell is

A) HUMAN
b) ALIVE

so what do you think?
 
Really? Which "liberal Supreme Court" addresses the "right to party" ?

:cuckoo:

The Burger court. Roe v. Wade. Maybe you heard of it. They plainly said there comes a point in the pregnancy when the unborn child has a right to life and therefore a right to be protected. Blackmun even spelled it out for the dense people like you.

Read it. Jesus, all you morons who think you are so clever asking your logically fallacious questions aren't even informed on the subject!
 
Very few of you anti-choice people truly care about these babies. If you did you'd be able to show us how you've adopted crack addicted babies...because you cared about the well being of the child.
 
Really? Which "liberal Supreme Court" addresses the "right to party" ?

:cuckoo:

The Burger court. Roe v. Wade. Maybe you heard of it. They plainly said there comes a point in the pregnancy when the unborn child has a right to life and has a right to be protected.

Read it. Jesus, all you morons who think you are so clever asking your logically fallacious questions aren't even informed on the subject!

That decision says nothing about the "right to party". You're really starting to flake out.
 
Very few of you anti-choice people truly care about these babies. If you did you'd be able to show us how you've adopted crack addicted babies...because you cared about the well being of the child.

Well we do, like Say Michelle Bauchman, which is why you guys tore her down, she and Palin both show your arguements are hollow and pathetic.

And again you're anti-choice, Im not. I'm pro responsibiltiy.
 
Very few of you anti-choice people truly care about these babies. If you did you'd be able to show us how you've adopted crack addicted babies...because you cared about the well being of the child.

They only care about it when they can execute or imprison women for it.

You'll find they don't give a shit about the children of families who can't make ends meet - until a mother or father in such a family murders one of those children, then they care a lot. Recall the right also didn't give a shit about the children of Iraq until they wanted to bomb Iraq. The extent to which right wingers "care" about anything is limited by the amount of punishment they will be able to impose on people they don't like.


If someone can't be imprisoned, executed, or bombed for it - then they stop caring.
 
Last edited:
Very few of you anti-choice people truly care about these babies. If you did you'd be able to show us how you've adopted crack addicted babies...because you cared about the well being of the child.

Well we do, like Say Michelle Bauchman, which is why you guys tore her down, she and Palin both show your arguements are hollow and pathetic.

And again you're anti-choice, Im not. I'm pro responsibiltiy.

How many crack babies have you adopted?
 

Forum List

Back
Top