Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

[sfcalifornia]

No, it's not. Pro-choice is pro abortion.

Couldn't be more wrong, as usual, and too stupid to know why.

For what it's worth: plenty of people would never get an abortion but will forever support another woman's right to choose.

No your arguement is stupid. Why are they not for abortion, what is the reason?

How should I know and what difference does it make?

 

[koshergrl]

Uh...you just said you know they will *forever support another woman's right to choose". One would think you would know why. I mean, that's a pretty definite statement.

 

[buckeye45_73]

No, it's not. Pro-choice is pro abortion.

Couldn't be more wrong, as usual, and too stupid to know why.

For what it's worth: plenty of people would never get an abortion but will forever support another woman's right to choose.

No your arguement is stupid. Why are they not for abortion, what is the reason?

it's a simple answer....lets get on with it

 

[Wicked Jester]

Couldn't be more wrong, as usual, and too stupid to know why.

For what it's worth: plenty of people would never get an abortion but will forever support another woman's right to choose.

No your arguement is stupid. Why are they not for abortion, what is the reason?

How should I know and what difference does it make?

"what difference does it make"

Wow, shades of Ham Hips Hillary.....I guess that's the new standard answer for liberals who are full of shit these days.....Particularly when it comes to them causing the deaths of millions of innocent children, and american representatives abroad.

 

[Wicked Jester]

No, it's not. Pro-choice is pro abortion.

Couldn't be more wrong, as usual, and too stupid to know why.

For what it's worth: plenty of people would never get an abortion but will forever support another woman's right to choose.

So, in summation, they are pro-abortion.

Don't be affraid, just admit it.....The truth shall set you free.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Couldn't be more wrong, as usual, and too stupid to know why.

For what it's worth: plenty of people would never get an abortion but will forever support another woman's right to choose.

No your arguement is stupid. Why are they not for abortion, what is the reason?

it's a simple answer....lets get on with it

This might be hard for you to wrap your head around but people often support things they wouldn't do themselves.

 

[Wicked Jester]

It's the same thing.

Progressives are all about hiding what they're really about. Noomi is the person who believes if someone wants to kill a 2 year old, then they must have a really good reason for it.

Noomi proves in every thread dealing with this issue, that she is one twisted, demented, dangerous, sick puppy.

 

[Wicked Jester]

But bad laws can lead to legalized murder...that is recognized after the fact as murder, and for which despots and monsters can be held accountable for later...DESPITE the legality of the killing at the time.

That post doesn't make sense. And the murder of citizens for political reasons is not comparable to a woman deciding that she is not in a position of having a baby or raising it. And unless you're going to give her the money she needs to have and raise the baby, it's none of your damn business.

Yeah, and I guess personal responsibilty by taking all considerations into account BEFORE choosing to spread ones legs, is not ones OWN business, eh?

Naaaaaaah, **** it, abortion is just another form of birth control for the ignorant.....If all else fails, I'll just have the inconvenient lil' bastard brutally tortured and killed, **** 'EM!

Sick fuckin' ghouls!

 

[sfcalifornia]

pro–choice

adjective \(&#716prō-ˈchȯis\


Definition of PRO-CHOICE

: favoring the legalization of abortion

If a woman favors legalization of abortion it does not automatically mean she would go out and have one herself.

 

[buckeye45_73]

pro–choice

adjective \(&#716prō-ˈchȯis\


Definition of PRO-CHOICE

: favoring the legalization of abortion

If a woman favors legalization of abortion it does not automatically mean she would go out and have one herself.

Ok WHY is that though?

 

[SuperDave]

But bad laws can lead to legalized murder...that is recognized after the fact as murder, and for which despots and monsters can be held accountable for later...DESPITE the legality of the killing at the time.

Abortion has not led to legalised murder, has it?

Abortion by it's very existence leads to legalized murder because abortion is legalized murder. You are taking the life of a unique human being who poses no threat to you, that is murder. The fact that our laws allow it to take place doesn't change that. At one time a slave owner could legally kill one of his slaves, that didn't mean it wasn't murder. And the fact that a human being has not yet passed through the birth canal so our current laws allow you to legally kill it under some circumstances doesn't change the fact that it's murder.

Noomi and anyone else who shares her beliefs, I would really like to understand your position so please help me out. This is a sincere question, the answer may seem blatantly obvious to you but I don't understand the reasoning. Given the exceptions of when the mother's life is at risk or even if there is a significant health risk and although I wish they would reconsider and go the adoption route I can certainly understand the rape exception. But in other cases where the mother willingly participated in the process that led to her pregnancy and that pregnancy does not put her at any undue risk do you honestly believe that the location of the unborn person and that location's inherent inconvenience to the mother is justification enough to take the life of a human being?

BTW some on here would do well to actually read Roe v Wade as opposed to just regurgitating what others have said, I've read some really odd statements about what it says. The crux of the Roe v Wade decision is viability, IOW whether the unborn child would likely survive outside the mother at it's current state of development.

Most legal scholars consider it to be both bad and cowardly law full of contradictions, oversights and "shoehorning" ideas where they really don't fit in order to legalize abortion without going too far beyond public sentiment. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, certainly no friend to the Pro-Life movement recently said that Roe "ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete jusification for it's action"

The most glaring problem is so obvious that missing it had to be intentional. Again the ruling was based on the viability outside the mother which of course would be based on the level of medical technology at the time to care for such a child. Yet the SCOTUS created no mechanism for regularly, or ever, re-visiting their decision and making adjustments based on improvements in medicine

 

[Noomi]

pro–choice

adjective \(&#716prō-ˈchȯis\


Definition of PRO-CHOICE

: favoring the legalization of abortion

If a woman favors legalization of abortion it does not automatically mean she would go out and have one herself.

Ok WHY is that though?

Because she is pro choice. Duh.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Innocent children shouldn't suffer. I'm against any kind of torture of our children.

 

[Noomi]

Noomi and anyone else who shares her beliefs, I would really like to understand your position so please help me out. This is a sincere question, the answer may seem blatantly obvious to you but I don't understand the reasoning. Given the exceptions of when the mother's life is at risk or even if there is a significant health risk and although I wish they would reconsider and go the adoption route I can certainly understand the rape exception. But in other cases where the mother willingly participated in the process that led to her pregnancy and that pregnancy does not put her at any undue risk do you honestly believe that the location of the unborn person and that location's inherent inconvenience to the mother is justification enough to take the life of a human being?

Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Using contraception and having sex means you are trying to prevent a pregnancy, not cause one.
Driving a car without a seatbelt might be irresponsible, but it doesn't mean the driver consents to being in an accident.
Having unprotected sex doesn't mean you consent to a sexually transmitted disease, either.

No one can say if a pregnancy will put a woman's life or health at risk. Most women go through pregnancy fine - apart from the morning sickness, and the pain of labor. Other women suffer severe morning sickness - Kate Middleton suffered from this. It can result in hospitalisation because you are dehydrated and weak. Some would expect a woman to endure this sickness for as long as it lasted - but if it puts her health at risk, she should have the choice to abort.
Pre eclampsia is another illness that can come about during pregnancy, and it can be fatal. HELPP syndrome is another illness which can also be fatal.
The woman may only develop this when its too late - shouldn't she have the right to decide whether she takes her chances in developing these illnesses?
Despite the fact that they are rare, they still exist, and every pregnant woman risks developing an illness that could potentially kill her.

Just because most women come through pregnancy healthy, with a healthy baby at the end of it, does not mean that every woman should be expected to take the risk.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Noomi and anyone else who shares her beliefs, I would really like to understand your position so please help me out. This is a sincere question, the answer may seem blatantly obvious to you but I don't understand the reasoning. Given the exceptions of when the mother's life is at risk or even if there is a significant health risk and although I wish they would reconsider and go the adoption route I can certainly understand the rape exception. But in other cases where the mother willingly participated in the process that led to her pregnancy and that pregnancy does not put her at any undue risk do you honestly believe that the location of the unborn person and that location's inherent inconvenience to the mother is justification enough to take the life of a human being?

Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Using contraception and having sex means you are trying to prevent a pregnancy, not cause one.
Driving a car without a seatbelt might be irresponsible, but it doesn't mean the driver consents to being in an accident.
Having unprotected sex doesn't mean you consent to a sexually transmitted disease, either.

No one can say if a pregnancy will put a woman's life or health at risk. Most women go through pregnancy fine - apart from the morning sickness, and the pain of labor. Other women suffer severe morning sickness - Kate Middleton suffered from this. It can result in hospitalisation because you are dehydrated and weak. Some would expect a woman to endure this sickness for as long as it lasted - but if it puts her health at risk, she should have the choice to abort.
Pre eclampsia is another illness that can come about during pregnancy, and it can be fatal. HELPP syndrome is another illness which can also be fatal.
The woman may only develop this when its too late - shouldn't she have the right to decide whether she takes her chances in developing these illnesses?
Despite the fact that they are rare, they still exist, and every pregnant woman risks developing an illness that could potentially kill her.

Just because most women come through pregnancy healthy, with a healthy baby at the end of it, does not mean that every woman should be expected to take the risk.

And what would be your method of exterminating the inconvenient lil' bastard......Maybe strangle it with the umbilical cord, suffocate it, electrocute it, burn it, shoot it, break its neck, maybe jab a knife in its head?

How would you have killed those conjoined twins ("monstrocities" as you put it) referenced in that other thread, that you admitted you would have killed AFTER THEY WERE BORN"?

Come on, Noomi, give us some insight into how a truly sick, twisted, demented, murderous, ghoulish mind works.

 

[Noomi]

Noomi and anyone else who shares her beliefs, I would really like to understand your position so please help me out. This is a sincere question, the answer may seem blatantly obvious to you but I don't understand the reasoning. Given the exceptions of when the mother's life is at risk or even if there is a significant health risk and although I wish they would reconsider and go the adoption route I can certainly understand the rape exception. But in other cases where the mother willingly participated in the process that led to her pregnancy and that pregnancy does not put her at any undue risk do you honestly believe that the location of the unborn person and that location's inherent inconvenience to the mother is justification enough to take the life of a human being?

Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Using contraception and having sex means you are trying to prevent a pregnancy, not cause one.
Driving a car without a seatbelt might be irresponsible, but it doesn't mean the driver consents to being in an accident.
Having unprotected sex doesn't mean you consent to a sexually transmitted disease, either.

No one can say if a pregnancy will put a woman's life or health at risk. Most women go through pregnancy fine - apart from the morning sickness, and the pain of labor. Other women suffer severe morning sickness - Kate Middleton suffered from this. It can result in hospitalisation because you are dehydrated and weak. Some would expect a woman to endure this sickness for as long as it lasted - but if it puts her health at risk, she should have the choice to abort.
Pre eclampsia is another illness that can come about during pregnancy, and it can be fatal. HELPP syndrome is another illness which can also be fatal.
The woman may only develop this when its too late - shouldn't she have the right to decide whether she takes her chances in developing these illnesses?
Despite the fact that they are rare, they still exist, and every pregnant woman risks developing an illness that could potentially kill her.

Just because most women come through pregnancy healthy, with a healthy baby at the end of it, does not mean that every woman should be expected to take the risk.

And what would be your method of exterminating the inconvenient lil' bastard......Maybe strangle it with the umbilical cord, suffocate it, electrocute it, burn it, shoot it, break its neck, maybe jab a knife in its head?

How would you have killed those conjoined twins ("monstrocities" as you put it) referenced in that other thread, that you admitted you would have killed AFTER THEY WERE BORN"?

Come on, Noomi, give us some insight into how a truly sick, twisted, demented, murderous, ghoulish mind works.

I am about to put you on ignore. You are welcome to bring that subject up in the relevant thread, but not in this thread, because it is ******* OFF TOPIC you stupid ****!

 

[JoeB131]

Pro choice means the choice to choose an abortion.

so whats the difference between pro choice and pro abortion, since choice is used as a synonym for abortion?

Being pro-abortion means you'd want people to have them.

Being pro-Choice means you want people to have that option, not that you have an opinion on whether they should.

That said, "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" are both euphamisms to not use the word "Abortion".

 

[Wicked Jester]

Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Using contraception and having sex means you are trying to prevent a pregnancy, not cause one.
Driving a car without a seatbelt might be irresponsible, but it doesn't mean the driver consents to being in an accident.
Having unprotected sex doesn't mean you consent to a sexually transmitted disease, either.

No one can say if a pregnancy will put a woman's life or health at risk. Most women go through pregnancy fine - apart from the morning sickness, and the pain of labor. Other women suffer severe morning sickness - Kate Middleton suffered from this. It can result in hospitalisation because you are dehydrated and weak. Some would expect a woman to endure this sickness for as long as it lasted - but if it puts her health at risk, she should have the choice to abort.
Pre eclampsia is another illness that can come about during pregnancy, and it can be fatal. HELPP syndrome is another illness which can also be fatal.
The woman may only develop this when its too late - shouldn't she have the right to decide whether she takes her chances in developing these illnesses?
Despite the fact that they are rare, they still exist, and every pregnant woman risks developing an illness that could potentially kill her.

Just because most women come through pregnancy healthy, with a healthy baby at the end of it, does not mean that every woman should be expected to take the risk.

And what would be your method of exterminating the inconvenient lil' bastard......Maybe strangle it with the umbilical cord, suffocate it, electrocute it, burn it, shoot it, break its neck, maybe jab a knife in its head?

How would you have killed those conjoined twins ("monstrocities" as you put it) referenced in that other thread, that you admitted you would have killed AFTER THEY WERE BORN"?

Come on, Noomi, give us some insight into how a truly sick, twisted, demented, murderous, ghoulish mind works.

I am about to put you on ignore. You are welcome to bring that subject up in the relevant thread, but not in this thread, because it is ******* OFF TOPIC you stupid ****!

Noooooo, this thread is dealing with the issue you so obviously crave, ABORTION!

Soooooo, it has everything to do with the "topic".....ya' dumbass ghoul.

 

[Noomi]

Pro choice means the choice to choose an abortion.

so whats the difference between pro choice and pro abortion, since choice is used as a synonym for abortion?

Being pro-abortion means you'd want people to have them.

Being pro-Choice means you want people to have that option, not that you have an opinion on whether they should.

That said, "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" are both euphamisms to not use the word "Abortion".

It will over their heads. They think that if you are pro choice you want to force everyone to have abortions.

 

[Noomi]

And what would be your method of exterminating the inconvenient lil' bastard......Maybe strangle it with the umbilical cord, suffocate it, electrocute it, burn it, shoot it, break its neck, maybe jab a knife in its head?

How would you have killed those conjoined twins ("monstrocities" as you put it) referenced in that other thread, that you admitted you would have killed AFTER THEY WERE BORN"?

Come on, Noomi, give us some insight into how a truly sick, twisted, demented, murderous, ghoulish mind works.

I am about to put you on ignore. You are welcome to bring that subject up in the relevant thread, but not in this thread, because it is ******* OFF TOPIC you stupid ****!

Noooooo, this thread is dealing with the issue you so obviously crave, ABORTION!

Soooooo, it has everything to do with the "topic".....ya' dumbass ghoul.

Killing babies who have been born is not abortion.