abortions the real choice

[jeffrockit]

Who cares if a woman aborts, we already have too many unwanted kids in the world today anyways, why do we need more of them?

Perhaps they should have thought about overpopulation before they had unprotected sex.

 

[jeffrockit]

By not criminalizing abortion, the government gives individuals the right to decide what to do with their bodies.

By having an unwanted pregnancy, that person has proven she has no clue as to what to do with her body. Some people are just too stupid to make decisions on their own.

 

[Jon]

Also, a woman raped should have to relive that every day for the next 9 months, all the while not knowing what she's going to end up with? And then what? Give yet another child to the already overcrowded foster system, and government agencies?

They make pills that prevent women who have been raped from getting pregnant. Any woman with common sense should know if she's raped to take the goddamn thing. If you don't have that much sense, you're a waste anyway.

 

[JBeukema]

You are right, most relive it everyday for years, sometimes forever.

That's simply not true. You're trying to use emotionally-laden rhetoric to avoid reason. It's a classic Leftist tactic when you have no argument.


Now, since you made the assertion: PROVE that 'most "relive it" for year'. Demonstrate that most women spend years 'reliving'; their rape every time they see their child. Prove it or stfu.

 

[Jon]

By having an unwanted pregnancy, that person has proven she has no clue as to what to do with her body. Some people are just too stupid to make decisions on their own.

Exactly, but this isn't limited to just women. Men are the same way.

If you women don't see the hypocrisy in a "woman's right to choose," you can go **** yourself. If women can choose, so should men be allowed to. If a man gets a woman pregnant and doesn't want the kid, he shouldn't be forced to pay child support. Again, though, women don't want to be treated equally. They want to be treated special. But when they are treated as such, they throw hissy ******* fits.

 

[Tinktink]

You are right, most relive it everyday for years, sometimes forever.

That's simply not true. You're trying to use emotionally-laden rhetoric to avoid reason. It's a classic Leftist tactic when you have no argument.


Now, since you made the assertion: PROVE that 'most "relive it" for year'. Demonstrate that most women spend years 'reliving'; their rape every time they see their child. Prove it or stfu.

First tell me about your rape experience, and how you survived it. Considering once again you know so much about it.

Once you do I will be happy to make the effort to provide you with links on the long term effects of rape, and pregnancy and rape, with a congrads on being one in the minority.

If you are talking strictly from your own opinion verses any knowledge on the subject. Then you do all the work to get educated.

Waiting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm sorry Mr Chihauhau ... are you attempting to nip at my heels? I wear ******* boots, so give it up.

With or without the steel shank to protect the sole of the foot?




Modern day leftist 'liberals' seem to fully embrace Libertinism It is they whom I was addressing. As something of a right-leaning libertarian (not Libertarian), I have no issue with Classical Liberalism (what later became the 'conservatism' of the GOP back in the day) as a whole.


You mean like neo-cons who co-opted 'conservatism' and began calling for a return to the status quo ante circa the Dark Ages?

Playing Devil's Advocate (I know that's stepping down from my role as Satan), what if someone takes EVERY precaution and still ends up pregnant but has no business with a child?

How about rape or incest?

Medical necessity to save the life of the mother?

Just trying to get exactly where you stand.

I know that was towards Allie, but I will volunteer my own responses.

If someone is an unfit parent, we have CPS investigate and, if appropriate, find a foster home (I understand that our current system is jacked- we need to invest much time and effort into making the system work as it was envisioned)

Rape/Incest: Help her find counseling, lock up the attacker, and help the woman find or provide a good home. The Left (as a whole) doesn't care about rape victims- they showed that when they had Norma McCorvey lie about being raped in order to get Roe V. Wade decided in their favor.

Medical Emergency: I don't understand how this is even an issue. Doctors are there to preserve life and health. If, as with an ectopic pregnancy that does not self-abort, the options are letting two+ persons (woman + cild) die or saving one life, the only moral and ethical option is to preserve the life that can be saved. To me, it's just like pulling someone out of a burning car- if only one can be pulled out, then the moral thing is to do so, not to let both people in the car burn to death. While the exact circumstances may at first appear different, the choice is the same: save one life, or let both lives perish.

Seriously? What about the foster homes that are so overloaded now? What about all the children that remain wards of the state NOW because there's no room for them?

What about it? Are you seriously suggesting that you advocate killing children in the womb out of compassion for THEM, because death is better than state care?

Also, a woman raped should have to relive that every day for the next 9 months, all the while not knowing what she's going to end up with? And then what? Give yet another child to the already overcrowded foster system, and government agencies?

So an innocent child should die on the off-chance that it will somehow make having been raped less traumatic? And cripes, what woman entirely knows what she's going to end up with when she's pregnant, other than that it's going to be a baby?

What would you choose in the case of saving the life of the mother vs. saving the life of the child? Should the mother carry to term, and give birth, the child will likely live, but she will die. Which one do you choose to kill at that point?

If I were the mother, I'd choose to risk my life for my child's. I was brought up to believe that that's what parents do. Would I legislate that choice? No, but I'll tell you honestly that while I would sympathize with any woman who chose otherwise, I wouldn't respect her.

But let's be completely honest here. Do you have any idea how seldom the pregnancy itself is actually a danger to the mother's life? More usually - which is still thankfully rare - the mother's life is endangered by something else, and the pregnancy stands in the way of her treatment for that condition.

 

[KittenKoder]

I know this question won't be answered, no one ever does, but it happens:

What if the woman who is pregnant will die, resulting in the death of the fetus as well? Would you think abortion is okay to save at least ONE life?

 

[JBeukema]

If a man gets a woman pregnant and doesn't want the kid, he shouldn't be forced to pay child support.

But men are evil sperm banks who must be punished because women were oppressed in the past!

]
*deflection*

In other words, you can't back up your assertions...

What about it? Are you seriously suggesting that you advocate killing children in the womb out of compassion for THEM, because death is better than state care?

yep, because the Leftist Nanny State is so great that death is better... it's called hypocrisy...

So an innocent child should die on the off-chance that it will somehow make having been raped less traumatic?

Then they can spend years wondering what their child would have been like- or maybe that's just the women the APA knows about and all the libertines who love killing babies live with Dis.

I wouldn't respect her less so much as I would respect the women who was willing to risk her life for her child a whole lot more.

But let's be completely honest here. Do you have any idea how seldom the pregnancy itself is actually a danger to the mother's life? More usually - which is still thankfully rare - the mother's life is endangered by something else, and the pregnancy stands in the way of her treatment for that condition.

You can't apply reason to libertine excuse-making. It's like the rape strawman, they just want to know what lie to tell to get someone to let them kill their baby so they don't have to be responsible or face reality.

 

[JBeukema]

I know this question won't be answered, no one ever does, but it happens:

What if the woman who is pregnant will die, resulting in the death of the fetus as well? Would you think abortion is okay to save at least ONE life?

Actually, I already addressed that

Medical Emergency: I don't understand how this is even an issue. Doctors are there to preserve life and health. If, as with an ectopic pregnancy that does not self-abort, the options are letting two+ persons (woman + cild) die or saving one life, the only moral and ethical option is to preserve the life that can be saved. To me, it's just like pulling someone out of a burning car- if only one can be pulled out, then the moral thing is to do so, not to let both people in the car burn to death. While the exact circumstances may at first appear different, the choice is the same: save one life, or let both lives perish.

 

[KittenKoder]

I know this question won't be answered, no one ever does, but it happens:

What if the woman who is pregnant will die, resulting in the death of the fetus as well? Would you think abortion is okay to save at least ONE life?

Actually, I already addressed that

Medical Emergency: I don't understand how this is even an issue. Doctors are there to preserve life and health. If, as with an ectopic pregnancy that does not self-abort, the options are letting two+ persons (woman + cild) die or saving one life, the only moral and ethical option is to preserve the life that can be saved. To me, it's just like pulling someone out of a burning car- if only one can be pulled out, then the moral thing is to do so, not to let both people in the car burn to death. While the exact circumstances may at first appear different, the choice is the same: save one life, or let both lives perish.

Haven't bothered keeping up with your position so forgive me if my assumption is wrong. But then that means abortion itself has to remain legal or the doctors are viable for murder. If made illegal then they would have to kill something or let something die, a no win situation.

 

[JBeukema]

Haven't bothered keeping up with your position

Gee, thanks. I can feel the love.

so forgive me if my assumption is wrong

What did you assume?

But then that means abortion itself has to remain legal or the doctors are viable for murder

Abortion = homicide. Not all homicides are murder. That is why the terminology used by both sides in regards to this issue can oft be misleading.

If made illegal then they would have to kill something or let something die, a no win situation.

Very few seem to call for the outright ban of all abortions under all circumstances- just as noone with a brain calls for all homicides to be illegal. We all understand that there are times when ending another life (by definition homicide) is justifiable, such as self-defense, non-self-terminating ectopic pregnancies, or (some but not all believe) in the case of execution of people convicted of certain crimes. The cases are all homicides, but few would declare them unjustifiable- and we can generally discount those few with a little touch of reason.

 

[KittenKoder]

Haven't bothered keeping up with your position

Gee, thanks. I can feel the love.

so forgive me if my assumption is wrong

What did you assume?

But then that means abortion itself has to remain legal or the doctors are viable for murder

Abortion = homicide. Not all homicides are murder. That is why the terminology used by both sides in regards to this issue can oft be misleading.

If made illegal then they would have to kill something or let something die, a no win situation.

Very few seem to call for the outright ban of all abortions under all circumstances- just as noone with a brain calls for all homicides to be illegal. We all understand that there are times when ending another life (by definition homicide) is justifiable, such as self-defense, non-self-terminating ectopic pregnancies, or (some but not all believe) in the case of execution of people convicted of certain crimes. The cases are all homicides, but few would declare them unjustifiable- and we can generally discount those few with a little touch of reason.

Most of those who are anti-abortion rant and rave that it should just be illegal and when faced with any possibility that would force the hands of the doctors they ignore it or just repeat the "abortion is wrong" catch phrase.

 

[JBeukema]

Well, KK, I certainly hope you don't still group JB with the unreasonables you have described.

Of course, you also have those on the either side, who rant and rave about 'a woman's right to choose' whether to to spend her life caring for a child and ignore or discount out of hand any mention of adoption, safe sex, or -god forbid- personal responsibility. There are those who would have killing any child under 18 legal, judging by their rants about being 'punished with a baby'

neither side is without their idiots, which is not surprising as I've found that reason leads to neither extreme

 

[Ravi]

No, it wasn't a stab at you, jsanders. Just some advice.

You've lost the battle for control of a woman's body. Bones posted herbal ways to abort, someone else posted how to do it with birth control pills.

If you want control of your reproductive rights, as a man, choose your partner wisely.

So yes, it was a stab. See, you and others miss my point entirely. I don't want control of a woman's body. I want women to take control of their own bodies and stop letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry **** them to make them feel better. If women would have the same responsibility you're preaching to me, abortions wouldn't be necessary. You, like Care, need to stop pointing fingers across the aisle.

I'm sorry that you see it as a stab...it is just the facts of life.

 

[Ravi]

I see the issue all boiled down to money again.

 

[Dis]

Also, a woman raped should have to relive that every day for the next 9 months, all the while not knowing what she's going to end up with? And then what? Give yet another child to the already overcrowded foster system, and government agencies?

They make pills that prevent women who have been raped from getting pregnant. Any woman with common sense should know if she's raped to take the goddamn thing. If you don't have that much sense, you're a waste anyway.

I trust you actually know HOW to read, and just skipped over my reference to the morning after pill, and it's acceptability for this particular instance in an effort to just get your post out there so you could see your name in lights?

 

[Dis]

Haven't bothered keeping up with your position

Gee, thanks. I can feel the love.



What did you assume?


Abortion = homicide. Not all homicides are murder. That is why the terminology used by both sides in regards to this issue can oft be misleading.

If made illegal then they would have to kill something or let something die, a no win situation.

Very few seem to call for the outright ban of all abortions under all circumstances- just as noone with a brain calls for all homicides to be illegal. We all understand that there are times when ending another life (by definition homicide) is justifiable, such as self-defense, non-self-terminating ectopic pregnancies, or (some but not all believe) in the case of execution of people convicted of certain crimes. The cases are all homicides, but few would declare them unjustifiable- and we can generally discount those few with a little touch of reason.

Most of those who are anti-abortion rant and rave that it should just be illegal and when faced with any possibility that would force the hands of the doctors they ignore it or just repeat the "abortion is wrong" catch phrase.

Actually, JB WILL just repeat the "abortion is wrong" phrase - his ONLY exception is the death one you reference above. A woman raped? Too ******* bad. Carry that baby, *****! Someone who has taken ALL precautions to NOT become pregnant, and is knowingly an unfit mother? Too ******* bad. Carry that baby, and throw it into the already overcrowded adoption pool!

JB has yet to state just how many of those unwanted and uncared for children HE is caring for, however.

Oh, and JB - Are you too ******* stupid to know how to use the quote function? A few of your posts are messed up now.

 

[We Are They]

cut JB some slack, he thinks he's a hot shot lawyer, even though he probably never argued a case in court. This is his chance to shine as a debater... or at least try to.
Ya JB learn how to use the quote tool... you tool. (Is that an acceptable word to use, or should I stick to "troll" so that it's not a personal attack?)

 

[Jon]

Someone who has taken ALL precautions to NOT become pregnant, and is knowingly an unfit mother?

If you are referring to someone who does not EVER want to become pregnant, then there are solutions to fix that. If she NEVER wants to become pregnant, and she does, then she has NOT taken all precautions.