A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Sounds to me like he is asking for simple proof that he can fact check and youve responded multiple times dodging. Why don't you just prove your claims if you can? Why the dodge?

Because he knows he's a liar, and that fact checking will expose his lies for what they are.

Like I said, son, that you don't believe them doesn't make them false. It only makes you a fool for ignoring the numbers.

Like I said, son, you stomping your feet, and insisting the numbers are real, doesn't make them real.

I posted facts. You refuse to accept them. Sign of a child.

My posting doesn't make them real. That they are real is what makes them real.

No. you posted bullshit you claim are facts, without any source, or reference to verify the claims you made. A claim is not automatically accurate, or true, just because you say so. Reality doesn't work that way, no matter how much you would like it to, Liar.

 

[Conservative65]

Sounds to me like he is asking for simple proof that he can fact check and youve responded multiple times dodging. Why don't you just prove your claims if you can? Why the dodge?

Because he knows he's a liar, and that fact checking will expose his lies for what they are.

Like I said, son, that you don't believe them doesn't make them false. It only makes you a fool for ignoring the numbers.

Like I said, son, you stomping your feet, and insisting the numbers are real, doesn't make them real.

I posted facts. You refuse to accept them. Sign of a child.

My posting doesn't make them real. That they are real is what makes them real.

No. you posted bullshit you claim are facts, without any source, or reference to verify the claims you made. A claim is not automatically accurate, or true, just because you say so. Reality doesn't work that way, no matter how much you would like it to, Liar.

The claim is accurate because it's true no matter how much you hate the truth.

I didn't say so. The numbers say so. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. You're one of those idiots that thinks someone should be able to make a choice, tell others to butt out, then are willing to offset the costs of a choice you were told to butt out of.

 

[Czernobog]

Because he knows he's a liar, and that fact checking will expose his lies for what they are.

Like I said, son, that you don't believe them doesn't make them false. It only makes you a fool for ignoring the numbers.

Like I said, son, you stomping your feet, and insisting the numbers are real, doesn't make them real.

I posted facts. You refuse to accept them. Sign of a child.

My posting doesn't make them real. That they are real is what makes them real.

No. you posted bullshit you claim are facts, without any source, or reference to verify the claims you made. A claim is not automatically accurate, or true, just because you say so. Reality doesn't work that way, no matter how much you would like it to, Liar.

The claim is accurate because it's true no matter how much you hate the truth.

I didn't say so. The numbers say so. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. You're one of those idiots that thinks someone should be able to make a choice, tell others to butt out, then are willing to offset the costs of a choice you were told to butt out of.

You really are a special kind of retarded, aren't you?

You: 54% of all children have red hair.

Me: Please link a source for that.

You: It's true. I got it from the Census Bureau.

Me: Please provide a link.

YOU: I don't have to, it's true.

Do you see the problem with where that conversation is going?!?!?!

 

[Conservative65]

Like I said, son, that you don't believe them doesn't make them false. It only makes you a fool for ignoring the numbers.

Like I said, son, you stomping your feet, and insisting the numbers are real, doesn't make them real.

I posted facts. You refuse to accept them. Sign of a child.

My posting doesn't make them real. That they are real is what makes them real.

No. you posted bullshit you claim are facts, without any source, or reference to verify the claims you made. A claim is not automatically accurate, or true, just because you say so. Reality doesn't work that way, no matter how much you would like it to, Liar.

The claim is accurate because it's true no matter how much you hate the truth.

I didn't say so. The numbers say so. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. You're one of those idiots that thinks someone should be able to make a choice, tell others to butt out, then are willing to offset the costs of a choice you were told to butt out of.

You really are a special kind of retarded, aren't you?

You: 54% of all children have red hair.

Me: Please link a source for that.

You: It's true. I got it from the Census Bureau.

Me: Please provide a link.

YOU: I don't have to, it's true.

Do you see the problem with where that conversation is going?!?!?!

I didn't say 54% of all children have red hair.

Now, you're just making up stuff.

The problem is you unwilling to accept facts because you don't LIKE them.

 

[Czernobog]

Like I said, son, you stomping your feet, and insisting the numbers are real, doesn't make them real.

I posted facts. You refuse to accept them. Sign of a child.

My posting doesn't make them real. That they are real is what makes them real.

No. you posted bullshit you claim are facts, without any source, or reference to verify the claims you made. A claim is not automatically accurate, or true, just because you say so. Reality doesn't work that way, no matter how much you would like it to, Liar.

The claim is accurate because it's true no matter how much you hate the truth.

I didn't say so. The numbers say so. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. You're one of those idiots that thinks someone should be able to make a choice, tell others to butt out, then are willing to offset the costs of a choice you were told to butt out of.

You really are a special kind of retarded, aren't you?

You: 54% of all children have red hair.

Me: Please link a source for that.

You: It's true. I got it from the Census Bureau.

Me: Please provide a link.

YOU: I don't have to, it's true.

Do you see the problem with where that conversation is going?!?!?!

I didn't say 54% of all children have red hair.

Now, you're just making up stuff.

The problem is you unwilling to accept facts because you don't LIKE them.

It was an EXAMPLE, you fucktard, to make the illustration as simple as possible! Jesus Christ! How do you dress yourself in the morning?!?!?!!

The problem is I am unwilling to accept your CLAIM that those numbers represent facts, on nothing but your say so, because you are a known LIAR!

 

[Slade3200]

I posted facts. You refuse to accept them. Sign of a child.

My posting doesn't make them real. That they are real is what makes them real.

No. you posted bullshit you claim are facts, without any source, or reference to verify the claims you made. A claim is not automatically accurate, or true, just because you say so. Reality doesn't work that way, no matter how much you would like it to, Liar.

The claim is accurate because it's true no matter how much you hate the truth.

I didn't say so. The numbers say so. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. You're one of those idiots that thinks someone should be able to make a choice, tell others to butt out, then are willing to offset the costs of a choice you were told to butt out of.

You really are a special kind of retarded, aren't you?

You: 54% of all children have red hair.

Me: Please link a source for that.

You: It's true. I got it from the Census Bureau.

Me: Please provide a link.

YOU: I don't have to, it's true.

Do you see the problem with where that conversation is going?!?!?!

I didn't say 54% of all children have red hair.

Now, you're just making up stuff.

The problem is you unwilling to accept facts because you don't LIKE them.

It was an EXAMPLE, you fucktard, to make the illustration as simple as possible! Jesus Christ! How do you dress yourself in the morning?!?!?!!

The problem is I am unwilling to accept your CLAIM that those numbers represent facts, on nothing but your say so, because you are a known LIAR!

Wow, you really need to spell things out for some of these people... Maybe we should start with our A, B, C's...

 

[Czernobog]

No. you posted bullshit you claim are facts, without any source, or reference to verify the claims you made. A claim is not automatically accurate, or true, just because you say so. Reality doesn't work that way, no matter how much you would like it to, Liar.

The claim is accurate because it's true no matter how much you hate the truth.

I didn't say so. The numbers say so. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. You're one of those idiots that thinks someone should be able to make a choice, tell others to butt out, then are willing to offset the costs of a choice you were told to butt out of.

You really are a special kind of retarded, aren't you?

You: 54% of all children have red hair.

Me: Please link a source for that.

You: It's true. I got it from the Census Bureau.

Me: Please provide a link.

YOU: I don't have to, it's true.

Do you see the problem with where that conversation is going?!?!?!

I didn't say 54% of all children have red hair.

Now, you're just making up stuff.

The problem is you unwilling to accept facts because you don't LIKE them.

It was an EXAMPLE, you fucktard, to make the illustration as simple as possible! Jesus Christ! How do you dress yourself in the morning?!?!?!!

The problem is I am unwilling to accept your CLAIM that those numbers represent facts, on nothing but your say so, because you are a known LIAR!

Wow, you really need to spell things out for some of these people... Maybe we should start with our A, B, C's...

Even then, they don't get it! I'm surprised this retard has the mental capacity to fucking dress himself in the mornings!

 

[Conservative65]

I posted facts. You refuse to accept them. Sign of a child.

My posting doesn't make them real. That they are real is what makes them real.

No. you posted bullshit you claim are facts, without any source, or reference to verify the claims you made. A claim is not automatically accurate, or true, just because you say so. Reality doesn't work that way, no matter how much you would like it to, Liar.

The claim is accurate because it's true no matter how much you hate the truth.

I didn't say so. The numbers say so. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. You're one of those idiots that thinks someone should be able to make a choice, tell others to butt out, then are willing to offset the costs of a choice you were told to butt out of.

You really are a special kind of retarded, aren't you?

You: 54% of all children have red hair.

Me: Please link a source for that.

You: It's true. I got it from the Census Bureau.

Me: Please provide a link.

YOU: I don't have to, it's true.

Do you see the problem with where that conversation is going?!?!?!

I didn't say 54% of all children have red hair.

Now, you're just making up stuff.

The problem is you unwilling to accept facts because you don't LIKE them.

It was an EXAMPLE, you fucktard, to make the illustration as simple as possible! Jesus Christ! How do you dress yourself in the morning?!?!?!!

The problem is I am unwilling to accept your CLAIM that those numbers represent facts, on nothing but your say so, because you are a known LIAR!

You're unwilling to accept it because you don't WANT to believe it. It goes against everything you've been misled to believe.

 

[Conservative65]

The claim is accurate because it's true no matter how much you hate the truth.

I didn't say so. The numbers say so. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. You're one of those idiots that thinks someone should be able to make a choice, tell others to butt out, then are willing to offset the costs of a choice you were told to butt out of.

You really are a special kind of retarded, aren't you?

You: 54% of all children have red hair.

Me: Please link a source for that.

You: It's true. I got it from the Census Bureau.

Me: Please provide a link.

YOU: I don't have to, it's true.

Do you see the problem with where that conversation is going?!?!?!

I didn't say 54% of all children have red hair.

Now, you're just making up stuff.

The problem is you unwilling to accept facts because you don't LIKE them.

It was an EXAMPLE, you fucktard, to make the illustration as simple as possible! Jesus Christ! How do you dress yourself in the morning?!?!?!!

The problem is I am unwilling to accept your CLAIM that those numbers represent facts, on nothing but your say so, because you are a known LIAR!

Wow, you really need to spell things out for some of these people... Maybe we should start with our A, B, C's...

Even then, they don't get it! I'm surprised this retard has the mental capacity to fucking dress himself in the mornings!

I have no problem getting dressed in the morning by myself. In addition, the clothes I put on are those I purchased myself not those someone else had to purchase for me like you think should be done.

We've gone over this before. You call me a retard yet you're willing to let someone that told you to butt out of the choice he/she made tell you that you should fund the results of that choice when they can't. That's retarded.

 

[Czernobog]

No. you posted bullshit you claim are facts, without any source, or reference to verify the claims you made. A claim is not automatically accurate, or true, just because you say so. Reality doesn't work that way, no matter how much you would like it to, Liar.

The claim is accurate because it's true no matter how much you hate the truth.

I didn't say so. The numbers say so. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. You're one of those idiots that thinks someone should be able to make a choice, tell others to butt out, then are willing to offset the costs of a choice you were told to butt out of.

You really are a special kind of retarded, aren't you?

You: 54% of all children have red hair.

Me: Please link a source for that.

You: It's true. I got it from the Census Bureau.

Me: Please provide a link.

YOU: I don't have to, it's true.

Do you see the problem with where that conversation is going?!?!?!

I didn't say 54% of all children have red hair.

Now, you're just making up stuff.

The problem is you unwilling to accept facts because you don't LIKE them.

It was an EXAMPLE, you fucktard, to make the illustration as simple as possible! Jesus Christ! How do you dress yourself in the morning?!?!?!!

The problem is I am unwilling to accept your CLAIM that those numbers represent facts, on nothing but your say so, because you are a known LIAR!

You're unwilling to accept it because you don't WANT to believe it. It goes against everything you've been misled to believe.

Whatever you say, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

You really are a special kind of retarded, aren't you?

You: 54% of all children have red hair.

Me: Please link a source for that.

You: It's true. I got it from the Census Bureau.

Me: Please provide a link.

YOU: I don't have to, it's true.

Do you see the problem with where that conversation is going?!?!?!

I didn't say 54% of all children have red hair.

Now, you're just making up stuff.

The problem is you unwilling to accept facts because you don't LIKE them.

It was an EXAMPLE, you fucktard, to make the illustration as simple as possible! Jesus Christ! How do you dress yourself in the morning?!?!?!!

The problem is I am unwilling to accept your CLAIM that those numbers represent facts, on nothing but your say so, because you are a known LIAR!

Wow, you really need to spell things out for some of these people... Maybe we should start with our A, B, C's...

Even then, they don't get it! I'm surprised this retard has the mental capacity to fucking dress himself in the mornings!

I have no problem getting dressed in the morning by myself. In addition, the clothes I put on are those I purchased myself not those someone else had to purchase for me like you think should be done.

We've gone over this before. You call me a retard yet you're willing to let someone that told you to butt out of the choice he/she made tell you that you should fund the results of that choice when they can't. That's retarded.

Whatever you say, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

I didn't say 54% of all children have red hair.

Now, you're just making up stuff.

The problem is you unwilling to accept facts because you don't LIKE them.

It was an EXAMPLE, you fucktard, to make the illustration as simple as possible! Jesus Christ! How do you dress yourself in the morning?!?!?!!

The problem is I am unwilling to accept your CLAIM that those numbers represent facts, on nothing but your say so, because you are a known LIAR!

Wow, you really need to spell things out for some of these people... Maybe we should start with our A, B, C's...

Even then, they don't get it! I'm surprised this retard has the mental capacity to fucking dress himself in the mornings!

I have no problem getting dressed in the morning by myself. In addition, the clothes I put on are those I purchased myself not those someone else had to purchase for me like you think should be done.

We've gone over this before. You call me a retard yet you're willing to let someone that told you to butt out of the choice he/she made tell you that you should fund the results of that choice when they can't. That's retarded.

Whatever you say, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It's not what I say. It's what the numbers say.

It's also what you have said you support with regards to taxpayers funding people who can't afford their own choices.

 

[Boss]

I'm pro-life but honestly it isn't a huge issue for me, and I am for choice in certain circumstances.

However here is what I really don't understand:

If you murder a pregnant women you get charged for murdering TWO people. How is that possible? That makes no sense to me whatsoever if we were to buy into the notion that a fetus is not a human being and therefore an abortion is not murder.

The only difference between those two scenarios is that in one the baby was wanted, in the other the baby was not. However, the mother's wishes have zero impact on the biological characteristics of the fetus.

A few things here... There is no biological argument. A living human organism exists in a state of being from the point of conception. There is no other intelligent argument, those are the facts.

Pro-abortionists like to call themselves "pro-choice" because it makes their position sound better. They are actually not "pro-choice" they are in favor of avoiding the consequences of choice by denying another all their choices.

Finally, in addition to being protected against violent crimes, the fetus also has legal property rights.

Ya see? This is why you keep being confused as one of the moralistic crackpots, Boss. Out of one side of your mouth you affirm that fetuses do not have personhood, and do not have "rights. You affirm that you are pro-choice (at least up to the end of the first trimester), but then out of the other side of your mouth you call us baby murderers\, abortionists, and insist that we have no "rational" argument.

And your arguments for insisting such are specious. You rather need to choose a position, and stick with it. Guess what? If you support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion - I don't care what timeframe you want to put on that support, then you are Pro-Choice. So, when you, then, call Pro-Choice activists "abortionists", you get that you are referring to yourself, right?!?!

Pick a position, and have the balls to stand behind it!

I am pro-life. I merely outlined a compromise I would be willing to live with in order to resolve the issue. You're twisting my suggestion into my position and that's dishonest. It's also dishonest that I've called you "baby murderers" ....that has never been a statement from me.

Now... MY life experience has taught me that whenever you are debating someone who has to resort to dishonesty and distortions like what you're doing... they have no argument and they know they have no argument.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm pro-life but honestly it isn't a huge issue for me, and I am for choice in certain circumstances.

However here is what I really don't understand:

If you murder a pregnant women you get charged for murdering TWO people. How is that possible? That makes no sense to me whatsoever if we were to buy into the notion that a fetus is not a human being and therefore an abortion is not murder.

The only difference between those two scenarios is that in one the baby was wanted, in the other the baby was not. However, the mother's wishes have zero impact on the biological characteristics of the fetus.

A few things here... There is no biological argument. A living human organism exists in a state of being from the point of conception. There is no other intelligent argument, those are the facts.

Pro-abortionists like to call themselves "pro-choice" because it makes their position sound better. They are actually not "pro-choice" they are in favor of avoiding the consequences of choice by denying another all their choices.

Finally, in addition to being protected against violent crimes, the fetus also has legal property rights.

Ya see? This is why you keep being confused as one of the moralistic crackpots, Boss. Out of one side of your mouth you affirm that fetuses do not have personhood, and do not have "rights. You affirm that you are pro-choice (at least up to the end of the first trimester), but then out of the other side of your mouth you call us baby murderers\, abortionists, and insist that we have no "rational" argument.

And your arguments for insisting such are specious. You rather need to choose a position, and stick with it. Guess what? If you support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion - I don't care what timeframe you want to put on that support, then you are Pro-Choice. So, when you, then, call Pro-Choice activists "abortionists", you get that you are referring to yourself, right?!?!

Pick a position, and have the balls to stand behind it!

I am pro-life. I merely outlined a compromise I would be willing to live with in order to resolve the issue. You're twisting my suggestion into my position and that's dishonest. It's also dishonest that I've called you "baby murderers" ....that has never been a statement from me.

Now... MY life experience has taught me that whenever you are debating someone who has to resort to dishonesty and distortions like what you're doing... they have no argument and they know they have no argument.

You called it infanticide. What do you think infanticide is? You insisted that you never call it murder, while calling it murder.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

You sound very confident in the validity of your statement but I can assure you for many it is quite the opposite. The "human organism" you refer to is a mass of cells that is developing within a woman, It is a part of her body. It is more of a parasite than a human until it reaches a state where it can survive on its own.

Well okay.. First of all, a parasite is a living organism independent of the host. It is NOT a part of the host organism. The "mass of cells" are carrying on the process of life... it IS a biologically independent organism. Cancer is a part of her body, her fingernails are part of her body.... those cells are reproducing as a part of her organism. They are unable to maintain homeostasis and carry on the process of life. The fetus is not reproducing through her organism it is merely using her organism to develop as that is how humans reproduce. The fetus has it's own DNA, it's own heartbeat, it's own fingerprints, it's own brainwaves and nervous system. In biology, nothing is ever defined by it's ability to survive on it's own. Survival is subjective, some things can't ever survive on their own... it doesn't mean they weren't what they were. Newborn babies die every day because they couldn't survive on their own... it does not make them non-human. At some point, EVERY human being will be unable to survive on it's own. According to biology, the zygote qualifies as a living organism the moment the fused egg cell reproduces more cells. That instant, it becomes a living organism. It exists in the state of being,,, therefore, we call it a being. It is human, so we call it a human being.

Except it doesn't have it's own heartbeat until 6 weeks, and it is not independent of the woman's until, at lest week 12. Fingerprints do not begin developing until at least the 10th week, and no independent brain activity has been recorded before the 20th week. Which, incidentally, is when the fetus is actually capable of homeostasis. You claim that a fetus is capable of homeostasis, as if that is true from the moment of conception. That is a lie. It relies entirely on the host's body to regulate temperature, digestion, even circulation. So, even using your criteria, it is not an independent organism until, at best, 6 weeks, more 20 weeks, as that is when it has attained true homeostasis.

You're misinterpreting what I presented again. I talked about heartbeat, fingerprints, DNA, etc. because these are evidence the organism isn't part of the host. Yes, these things all have to develop but that's precisely what the organism is doing. To argue that it's NOT an independent organism while it is doing the things an organism does, is kind of dumb. So the things I listed are NOT criteria, they are things an organism does and proves there is no question the organism is not part of the host.

I don't know what you mean by "true homeostasis" ....is there some other kind? We're talking about the clinical biological homeostasis which is very much different than what you are relating it to. Here is the clinical definition: the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes. By your own admission... some kind of "true homeostasis" is reached at some point... therefore, it is no question the organism is in a tendency toward that state. But clinically, homeostasis has been happening since conception along with reproduction of cells through the working of interdependent elements. (aka: living) THIS makes it an organism.

So when the term "pro-choice" is used, it is a very literal, accurate and deliberate phrase used in respect to the right for a woman to have control over what she does with her body. This is a very complicated issue and there is much to debate, however, don't belittle and mischaracterize the other sides point of view.... Even if you might not agree with it.

But it's not accurate and it's not even literal... it's a lie. The woman had a choice... she chose to have unprotected sexual relations...

Wrong. Your statement is the lie, and a presumption. What evidence do you have that every woman who is considering an abortion knowingly, and willingly had unprotected sex? Not had sex, mind you - the evidence of that is the pregnancy - but that it was unprotected, with her knowledge, and consent? You see, it is about emotions for you. It's just that it's about the worst kind of emotion - hubris. You self-righteously, and sanctimoniously decide that any woman who is pregnant is some ignorant skank who was too stupid to keep her legs closed without a condom, or birth control, so she deserves to have her entire life interrupted with the pain, and indignity of a pregnancy. She deserves to be forced to give up whatever plans she may have had, in order to spend the next 9 months as a walking, talking incubator.

Maybe, next time, she'll think twice before opening her legs, right? Now, you're going to insist that you didn't say any of that. Except you do, every time you talk about "choosing to have unprotected sex". It's time you moralists understand what everyone hears when you say the things that you say, whether you intend for that to be your meaning, or not. It's why we call, it slut shaming.

These seem to be the only weapons in the arsenal of the anti-choice activists - guilt tripping with "child", and slut shaming with "She chose to open her legs". And they wonder why those of us who are pro-choice remain unconvinced of their arguments some 40 years later.

In the words of William Muny... "Deserve's got nothing to do with it!" I've not "slut-shamed" or "guilt-tripped" anyone... I just stated biological facts commonly known as the birds and bees. The woman and man chose to have sex and not use birth control, thus she became pregnant. 99.5% of the time, that's exactly how she got to be pregnant unless she was the victim of rape or incest.

You're "unconvinced" because you want to continue allowing irresponsibility for choices. Old fuddy-duddies need to stop spoiling your fun... you want to fuck and not wear a condom... she doesn't want to have to take a pill to fuck.... You don't want to face the consequences of that choice. You want to deny another ALL their choices by extermination.

My weapon in the arsenal is biology and you've not refuted any of it.

 

[Boss]

You called it infanticide. What do you think infanticide is? You insisted that you never call it murder, while calling it murder.

I said at some point it is legal infanticide. Go look up the word if you're having trouble... it doesn't mean the same thing as "murder."

 

[Boss]

You sound very confident in the validity of your statement but I can assure you for many it is quite the opposite. The "human organism" you refer to is a mass of cells that is developing within a woman, It is a part of her body. It is more of a parasite than a human until it reaches a state where it can survive on its own.

Well okay.. First of all, a parasite is a living organism independent of the host. It is NOT a part of the host organism. The "mass of cells" are carrying on the process of life... it IS a biologically independent organism. Cancer is a part of her body, her fingernails are part of her body.... those cells are reproducing as a part of her organism. They are unable to maintain homeostasis and carry on the process of life. The fetus is not reproducing through her organism it is merely using her organism to develop as that is how humans reproduce. The fetus has it's own DNA, it's own heartbeat, it's own fingerprints, it's own brainwaves and nervous system. In biology, nothing is ever defined by it's ability to survive on it's own. Survival is subjective, some things can't ever survive on their own... it doesn't mean they weren't what they were. Newborn babies die every day because they couldn't survive on their own... it does not make them non-human. At some point, EVERY human being will be unable to survive on it's own. According to biology, the zygote qualifies as a living organism the moment the fused egg cell reproduces more cells. That instant, it becomes a living organism. It exists in the state of being,,, therefore, we call it a being. It is human, so we call it a human being.

I find it amusing to hear men who think they have all the answers about this yet they can never really understand what its like to grow something inside of them. It would be like a girl trying to tell you what it feels like to get kicked in the balls... There is just no way for her to know what kind of feeling that entails. jk

This isn't about feelings. This is about biology and ethics. What if it was a law that men could kill people who hit them in their testicles? Would you stand by the men fighting for that "right" because females don't know what it feels like?

So when the term "pro-choice" is used, it is a very literal, accurate and deliberate phrase used in respect to the right for a woman to have control over what she does with her body. This is a very complicated issue and there is much to debate, however, don't belittle and mischaracterize the other sides point of view.... Even if you might not agree with it.

But it's not accurate and it's not even literal... it's a lie. The woman had a choice... she chose to have unprotected sexual relations and she became pregnant as a result of her choice. For the record, it was also the male's choice and he should bear just as much responsibility. Our choices have consequences. Pro-abortionists like to call themselves "pro-choice" but they are actually opposed to taking responsibility for choices and they seek to escape their responsibility by removing ALL choices from another. You could more literally describe them as ANTI-choice.

Any point of view that does not recognize the biological fact that a fetus is a living human being is wrong and worthy of belittling and ridicule. I have NO problem with an honest objective debate over when it may be appropriate to terminate a human life. We can't have that conversation until we're on the same page. Denying the fetus is a human being is biological illiteracy.

Well you did an excellent job of restating your previous point. I wasn't calling a fetus a literal parasite btw, nor was I denying that it was a living organism, it sounds like you missed my point all together. The most important part of my point and the pro-choice movement is the fact that the organism is a part of the females body. Really think about that for a second.

I've actually thought about it more than a second, I've studied about it extensively. The organism is not a part of the woman's body any more than a parasitic organism is part of her body. The woman's body simply provides an environment for the organism to grow. When it's cells are reproducing and it's growing assorted body parts and developing various functions, that is NOT the woman's organism doing it.

The process of pregnancy and birth is a life altering event that changes a women's body forever. If she keeps the child it changes her life forever and either way has lasting psychological effects. This is a great and wonderful thing that for many is the purpose and source of joy in their lives. But it is also a major decision and whether a woman is ready and prepared to carry a child a assume all the risks and effects involved is a decision that only she can make. Sex is part of our human nature, we do it both for pleasure and for pro-creation. The act of aborting is punishment enough, we don't need the government making further legal consequences.

I don't disagree with most of this. It is a huge life-changing thing... and I will add... it's also a huge life-changing thing to have an abortion and that's not often discussed in this debate. Millions of women have suffered life-long depression, alcoholism, drug addiction and even suicide as the result of guilt from having an abortion. No one warned them of this, they had no idea it would effect them this way.

So, both child birth and abortion are profoundly major decisions. Pregnancy is 'Real World' time. This should always be considered when having sex... it IS a choice you are making or a risk you are taking.

Your pro-abortion label is insulting and grossly inaccurate. I don't use absolutes so I won't say all but many on the pro-choice side do not want to see more abortions, they want to see less. They support better education, contraception access, and parental support. It's not their goal to promote abortions and it is, for most women, the hardest CHOICE a women will ha e to make in her life. And it is a choice that men have no ability to understand.

I do agree it is a worthy discussion to decide where the line is drawn. That comes down to public opinion based on personal and moral grounds.

Well, my "pro-abortion" label is absolutely accurate. I reject the "pro-choice" label because it's not accurate. It's a way pro-abortionists appease their own conscience. The choice was made to have sex and take the risk of becoming pregnant. They want to avoid the consequences of choice by removing all the choices of another. If anything, that's ANTI-choice.

And I have said numerous times... I am pro-life, I would never get an abortion if I were a pregnant woman.... I would find another option. That said, I realize we all live in collective society with differing morals and ethics... I don't expect everyone to hold my same beliefs. As a member of such a society, I am willing to work toward a reasonable compromise we can all (somewhat) live with.

My suggestion... what I would be willing to accept in civil society... is a state-decided parameter of 1st trimester abortion pending terms and conditions. Mandatory counseling and birth control education for both the female and "baby daddy" before any abortion other than rape and incest. No abortion after the 1st trimester unless it is a "risk of mother's life" scenario. I think I could live with that and I think a vast majority of Americans would be okay with that. The problem, as usual, are the extremists on both sides.

 

[Dana7360]

I think a good question to ask those who believe women should be protected for having an abortion would be:

Do you support the man who made her pregnant being prosecuted too?

She didn't get pregnant alone. That man is just as responsible for that pregnancy as the woman so if that woman is prosecuted for having an abortion that man should be prosecuted right along with her.

To those who say they "don't want to pay for other people's irresponsibility" I have a couple questions.

Why aren't you making sure all men support all life they create?

Second, birth control isn't 100% effective. Including vasectomy or tied tubes.

My oldest sister is a doctor, when she went through the ob training she had to treat many pregnant women and deliver the babies. She told me of one of her patients who had her tubes tied. Her new husband had a vasectomy. She became pregnant.

The wife of an old friend of mine's brother had her tubes tied. She became pregnant.

A good friend of mine had her tubes tied. She became pregnant.

What a lot of women don't know, especially younger women, is that some prescribed medications make the pill ineffective. Especially certain antibiotics.

One of my assistants had that exact same thing happen to her. Twice. No one told her that the antibiotics she was taking would make the pill useless.

Then there are the millions of women who are raped. They didn't choose to be raped and the barbarian who raped her didn't use a condom yet you expect her to carry that possible fetus to term against her will and refuse any financial help to raise it.

Then there are the children who are survivors of incest. It happens more than you want to admit. You want to force that girl to carry the possible fetus to term against her will and refuse any financial help to raise it even though that girl should be in school and it's probably illegal for her to go to work because of her age.

Then there are women who like my cousin's wife were at the last trimester of a very planned and wanted pregnancy. The cord got wrapped around the neck of the fetus and strangled it. She had to have a late term abortion to save her own life. Yet you would force her to walk around with a dead fetus in her growing bacteria that will kill her.

Then there are women who face an ectopic pregnancy. There is no life in that fertilized egg and never will be. There are only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy.

1. The woman has an abortion and lives.
2. The woman doesn't have an abortion and the woman dies needlessly.

I would take your words about abortion much more seriously if you all supported the following 2 things.

1. Birth control being free and sold over the counter to anyone who wants it.
2. Financially support the fetus when the woman is pregnant and financially support it once it's born.

If any of you were actually concerned with abortion and children you would be making sure that birth control was freely available to anyone who wants it, you would be supporting Obamacare for pre natal care for that fetus to be born healthy and you would financially support that child with food, clothes and a proper good education.

Yet you all do the exact opposite.

So if you all expect to actually be taken seriously, advocate for men to be prosecuted right along with women for abortions, do all you can to make sure that birth control is freely available to all and not bitch and whine about having to support someone who did what you wanted them to do, not have an abortion, give birth and raise the child.

 

[Slade3200]

You sound very confident in the validity of your statement but I can assure you for many it is quite the opposite. The "human organism" you refer to is a mass of cells that is developing within a woman, It is a part of her body. It is more of a parasite than a human until it reaches a state where it can survive on its own.

Well okay.. First of all, a parasite is a living organism independent of the host. It is NOT a part of the host organism. The "mass of cells" are carrying on the process of life... it IS a biologically independent organism. Cancer is a part of her body, her fingernails are part of her body.... those cells are reproducing as a part of her organism. They are unable to maintain homeostasis and carry on the process of life. The fetus is not reproducing through her organism it is merely using her organism to develop as that is how humans reproduce. The fetus has it's own DNA, it's own heartbeat, it's own fingerprints, it's own brainwaves and nervous system. In biology, nothing is ever defined by it's ability to survive on it's own. Survival is subjective, some things can't ever survive on their own... it doesn't mean they weren't what they were. Newborn babies die every day because they couldn't survive on their own... it does not make them non-human. At some point, EVERY human being will be unable to survive on it's own. According to biology, the zygote qualifies as a living organism the moment the fused egg cell reproduces more cells. That instant, it becomes a living organism. It exists in the state of being,,, therefore, we call it a being. It is human, so we call it a human being.

I find it amusing to hear men who think they have all the answers about this yet they can never really understand what its like to grow something inside of them. It would be like a girl trying to tell you what it feels like to get kicked in the balls... There is just no way for her to know what kind of feeling that entails. jk

This isn't about feelings. This is about biology and ethics. What if it was a law that men could kill people who hit them in their testicles? Would you stand by the men fighting for that "right" because females don't know what it feels like?

So when the term "pro-choice" is used, it is a very literal, accurate and deliberate phrase used in respect to the right for a woman to have control over what she does with her body. This is a very complicated issue and there is much to debate, however, don't belittle and mischaracterize the other sides point of view.... Even if you might not agree with it.

But it's not accurate and it's not even literal... it's a lie. The woman had a choice... she chose to have unprotected sexual relations and she became pregnant as a result of her choice. For the record, it was also the male's choice and he should bear just as much responsibility. Our choices have consequences. Pro-abortionists like to call themselves "pro-choice" but they are actually opposed to taking responsibility for choices and they seek to escape their responsibility by removing ALL choices from another. You could more literally describe them as ANTI-choice.

Any point of view that does not recognize the biological fact that a fetus is a living human being is wrong and worthy of belittling and ridicule. I have NO problem with an honest objective debate over when it may be appropriate to terminate a human life. We can't have that conversation until we're on the same page. Denying the fetus is a human being is biological illiteracy.

Well you did an excellent job of restating your previous point. I wasn't calling a fetus a literal parasite btw, nor was I denying that it was a living organism, it sounds like you missed my point all together. The most important part of my point and the pro-choice movement is the fact that the organism is a part of the females body. Really think about that for a second.

I've actually thought about it more than a second, I've studied about it extensively. The organism is not a part of the woman's body any more than a parasitic organism is part of her body. The woman's body simply provides an environment for the organism to grow. When it's cells are reproducing and it's growing assorted body parts and developing various functions, that is NOT the woman's organism doing it.

The process of pregnancy and birth is a life altering event that changes a women's body forever. If she keeps the child it changes her life forever and either way has lasting psychological effects. This is a great and wonderful thing that for many is the purpose and source of joy in their lives. But it is also a major decision and whether a woman is ready and prepared to carry a child a assume all the risks and effects involved is a decision that only she can make. Sex is part of our human nature, we do it both for pleasure and for pro-creation. The act of aborting is punishment enough, we don't need the government making further legal consequences.

I don't disagree with most of this. It is a huge life-changing thing... and I will add... it's also a huge life-changing thing to have an abortion and that's not often discussed in this debate. Millions of women have suffered life-long depression, alcoholism, drug addiction and even suicide as the result of guilt from having an abortion. No one warned them of this, they had no idea it would effect them this way.

So, both child birth and abortion are profoundly major decisions. Pregnancy is 'Real World' time. This should always be considered when having sex... it IS a choice you are making or a risk you are taking.

Your pro-abortion label is insulting and grossly inaccurate. I don't use absolutes so I won't say all but many on the pro-choice side do not want to see more abortions, they want to see less. They support better education, contraception access, and parental support. It's not their goal to promote abortions and it is, for most women, the hardest CHOICE a women will ha e to make in her life. And it is a choice that men have no ability to understand.

I do agree it is a worthy discussion to decide where the line is drawn. That comes down to public opinion based on personal and moral grounds.

Well, my "pro-abortion" label is absolutely accurate. I reject the "pro-choice" label because it's not accurate. It's a way pro-abortionists appease their own conscience. The choice was made to have sex and take the risk of becoming pregnant. They want to avoid the consequences of choice by removing all the choices of another. If anything, that's ANTI-choice.

And I have said numerous times... I am pro-life, I would never get an abortion if I were a pregnant woman.... I would find another option. That said, I realize we all live in collective society with differing morals and ethics... I don't expect everyone to hold my same beliefs. As a member of such a society, I am willing to work toward a reasonable compromise we can all (somewhat) live with.

My suggestion... what I would be willing to accept in civil society... is a state-decided parameter of 1st trimester abortion pending terms and conditions. Mandatory counseling and birth control education for both the female and "baby daddy" before any abortion other than rape and incest. No abortion after the 1st trimester unless it is a "risk of mother's life" scenario. I think I could live with that and I think a vast majority of Americans would be okay with that. The problem, as usual, are the extremists on both sides.

I agree with much of your statement and think you have a reasonable solution... A bit stricter than I'd propose but in the ballpark. I don't agree with your opening statement about the "organism"... it IS part of the woman's body. It is made up of her DNA, it is feeding and developing off of her body. The idea Of making this a "person" is a social construct that varies depending on or personal, religious, and cultural beliefs. While this makes it a relevant arguement and discussion it does not make it fact.

 

[the_human_being]

Very simple...... the penalty for an abortion should be sterilization. We can discuss the specific type, but I'm in favor of complete removal of the ovaries.

So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women…

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

Your preception is totally wrong. Most so-defined anti-choice folks are happily married with families. Many have wives of their own, daughters, sisters, and mothers. Most have no females within their own families who have made the abortion choice. Your argument is without merit since there is definitely a choice made for life each and every day by responsible women.