Anti-abortion fanatics

[Dhara]

We are not going to stand by and allow you to commit genocide. We will fight you on this, and we will never give up, ever. In 1000 years we will still be fighting you, if that's what it takes.

.
is that abortion or all contraceptive measures including not to have intercourse as a choice.

.

The decisions a woman makes during pregnancy are based on her own circumstances, her own values, and her own preferences. Others have no right to impose on her their own judgments about what they think is best for her and her fetus, depriving her of her freedom to make her own choices and to control her own life.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those hostile to privacy rights have presented nothing but a failed appeal to emotion fallacy, while offering nothing of substance as to actually ending the practice – where 'banning' abortion is not a 'solution.'

 

[Dhara]

Ohio State Rep. John Becker wants to force women to bring down syndrome fetuses to term regardless of the pregnant woman and her familie's wishes.

The bill, filed earlier this year by Republicans in Ohio, would ban abortions for women who did not want to carry a fetus that had been diagnosed with Down syndrome.

‘Where Does It Stop?’ If You Can Force Women To Carry Down Syndrome Fetuses | alan.com

 

[Dhara]

New Mexico State Legislator Cathrynn Brown has proposed a bill that would allegedly charge those who were sexually assaulted and sought out an abortion with a felony for “tampering with evidence.”

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for “tampering with evidence.”

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime,” the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.
Forcing Rape Victims to Give Birth? New Mexico Has a Novel Approach

 

[Dhara]

Earlier this year, a 10-year-old girl was raped by her mother’s 42-year-old boyfriend, Gilberto Martinez Zarate. After going to the doctor for stomach pains, it was discovered she was pregnant and authorities arrested Zarate in May and charged the girl’s mother with neglect. Unfortunately, the girl lives in a country where the government is controlled by religious anti-abortion zealots so she was denied an abortion.

International outrage has ensued ever since, as human rights groups have blasted the Paraguayan government for putting the little girl’s life at risk.

And the now 11-year-old girl certainly was lucky to survive.

She gave birth this month via C-section and she’ll never have a chance at a normal childhood.
Conservative Dream Come True: 11-Year-Old Rape Victim Forced To Give Birth

 

[aris2chat]

We call ourselves "pro-life". If you're going to label the pro-aborts "pro-choice" then you should use our preferred name as well.

I prefer pro-choice or anti-choice.

The right to choose what is right for the woman is also choosing to keep the fetus if she wants.

No one should take that choice and freedom away from her. We do not have sharia type laws and restrict woman to a sub-servant status. It is the woman's body and her life. It should be her choice, either way.

I'm glad our Supreme Court already appreciates the fact that it is problematic to abortion supporters for a person's rights to begin when their life does.

That's why I long for the day when our court will have to reconcile their ruling in Roe with our more recent fetal HOMICIDE laws which establishes the fact that it is a child in the womb which is worthy of each their own Constitutional rights and protections.

Till the last trimester if the mother dies in an accident you are not charged with two deaths. You have to know she is pregnant or it is visible that she is pregnant. Does not apply in the first trimester at all.

Till it is out of her body, or old enough that it might survive outside, it is not a person. It is a parasite feeding off her, making her sick, deforming her body, causing pain, making breathing difficult, even moving and standing up can be a obstacle. It cannot live without her, it is a part of her and her body so she has all say over it.
When it can take it's first breath apart from her, it become its own person.

Some women enjoy being pregnant, good for them, some are afraid, don't want or have had a problem and are unwilling to try again. Some are told they should not due to preconditions and o

No one has a right to her medical records or her conversations with her doctor. no one should even know she is pregnant or of her choice.

I misjudged you, I thought you were a nice person and could be persuaded.

Now I look upon you with horror. What happened to you that made you such a horrible person?

I've seen the horrors of what happens to women without freedom elsewhere in the world.
War, rape, abuse, poverty, submission, massacres, mutilation ................

A woman's body should be hers to control, without exception. No one should take that right away from her.

No child should be born unwanted or unloved because a woman had no choice.

Let men get a uterus transplant and be the ones to carry and give birth. Let them risk their health and their life giving birth.

 

[Chuz Life]

Actually, I tend to reduce everything down to the simplest and most obvious terms. I simply call Prochoice " baby murderers".

That's because you are simple minded. You think a fetus is a baby. You probably think an egg is a chicken and an acorn is an oak tree too.

A fertilised chicken egg IS a young chicken (the young of the parents who created it) and a Germinating acorn (scientifically) is a very VERY young oak tree.

Biology 101

 

[Carla_Danger]

Pro abortion is defined as anti life.

No one is pro abortion.

 

[aris2chat]

New Mexico State Legislator Cathrynn Brown has proposed a bill that would allegedly charge those who were sexually assaulted and sought out an abortion with a felony for “tampering with evidence.”

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for “tampering with evidence.”

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime,” the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.
Forcing Rape Victims to Give Birth? New Mexico Has a Novel Approach

and let the rapist have rights and control over their victim is insane. The fetus can still provide DNA. I wish woman were not so scared to get a rape kit, even if they later choose to no fine charges.
Courts do not need a live child for evidence.

 

[aris2chat]

Actually, I tend to reduce everything down to the simplest and most obvious terms. I simply call Prochoice " baby murderers".

That's because you are simple minded. You think a fetus is a baby. You probably think an egg is a chicken and an acorn is an oak tree too.

A fertilised chicken egg IS a young chicken (the young of the parents who created it) and a Germinating acorn (scientifically) is a very VERY young oak tree.

Biology 101

not till it hatches.

 

[Chuz Life]

Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want OR force her to terminate a pregnancy she wants violates the basic human right of a woman's reproductive health.

In as much as I am respectful of women's rights. . . I have to remind myself that a woman's rights begin when her life does.

At conception.

And that would be incorrect.

What good is a woman's rights if they do not begin when her life does?

This fails as a meaningless question fallacy.

And again: what is your solution to end the problem of abortion that comports with the Constitution and it case law.

Your doublespeak. Is it an attempt to muddy the waters?

Constitutionally, the recognition of the personhood of children in the womb is problematic for those who demand abortion on demand.

Our Supreme Court has said this - themselves.

So there is "solution" to the problem other than to insure that the rights of all are EQUALLY being protected as the Constitution demands.

 

[Blackrook]

I prefer pro-choice or anti-choice.

The right to choose what is right for the woman is also choosing to keep the fetus if she wants.

No one should take that choice and freedom away from her. We do not have sharia type laws and restrict woman to a sub-servant status. It is the woman's body and her life. It should be her choice, either way.

I'm glad our Supreme Court already appreciates the fact that it is problematic to abortion supporters for a person's rights to begin when their life does.

That's why I long for the day when our court will have to reconcile their ruling in Roe with our more recent fetal HOMICIDE laws which establishes the fact that it is a child in the womb which is worthy of each their own Constitutional rights and protections.

Till the last trimester if the mother dies in an accident you are not charged with two deaths. You have to know she is pregnant or it is visible that she is pregnant. Does not apply in the first trimester at all.

Till it is out of her body, or old enough that it might survive outside, it is not a person. It is a parasite feeding off her, making her sick, deforming her body, causing pain, making breathing difficult, even moving and standing up can be a obstacle. It cannot live without her, it is a part of her and her body so she has all say over it.
When it can take it's first breath apart from her, it become its own person.

Some women enjoy being pregnant, good for them, some are afraid, don't want or have had a problem and are unwilling to try again. Some are told they should not due to preconditions and o

No one has a right to her medical records or her conversations with her doctor. no one should even know she is pregnant or of her choice.

I misjudged you, I thought you were a nice person and could be persuaded.

Now I look upon you with horror. What happened to you that made you such a horrible person?

I've seen the horrors of what happens to women without freedom elsewhere in the world.
War, rape, abuse, poverty, submission, massacres, mutilation ................

A woman's body should be hers to control, without exception. No one should take that right away from her.

No child should be born unwanted or unloved because a woman had no choice.

Let men get a uterus transplant and be the ones to carry and give birth. Let them risk their health and their life giving birth.

Get off your high horse. You believe that a woman should be allowed to kill her own child. That makes you the bad guy.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Pro abortion is defined as anti life.

No one is pro abortion.

What color is the sky in your world? Mine is blue.

 

[Dhara]

Zygotes and fetuses are not "persons" entitled to rights superior to the rights of adult pregnant women.

 

[Chuz Life]

Actually, I tend to reduce everything down to the simplest and most obvious terms. I simply call Prochoice " baby murderers".

That's because you are simple minded. You think a fetus is a baby. You probably think an egg is a chicken and an acorn is an oak tree too.

A fertilised chicken egg IS a young chicken (the young of the parents who created it) and a Germinating acorn (scientifically) is a very VERY young oak tree.

Biology 101

not till it hatches.

Biologically, a chicken in the embryonic stage of their life is a CHICKEN in the embryonic stage of their life.

Likewise, a human being (a person) in the first days of their life is none the less a "Human Being" / the young of the parents who created them - even in that stage of their life.

Ask yourself. . . . when did your biological FATHER become your biological father / parent?

The scientifically correct answer is "conception" and it is not "parturition."

 

[aris2chat]

Till the last trimester if the mother dies in an accident you are not charged with two deaths. You have to know she is pregnant or it is visible that she is pregnant. Does not apply in the first trimester at all.

Again, you are showing that you are not familiar with the language of our fetal homicide laws and /or with any of the convictions that are already being upheld by our Supreme Court.

I will grant that convictions are difficult and many arrests often lead to plea deals and such. However, the language is clear that the gestational age of the child killed does not matter.

Till it is out of her body, or old enough that it might survive outside, it is not a person.

I understand that is your belief and that is your opinion. It is not what the language of the laws is, however.

It is a parasite feeding off her, making her sick, deforming her body, causing pain, making breathing difficult, even moving and standing up can be a obstacle.

The parent child relationship is not scientifically recognized as parasitic. It is symbiotic. Primarily because the production of offspring is necessary for the survival of the species and "parasites" do not attach themselves and live at the detriment of their own kind.

You seem to have even less an appreciation of the scientific facts than you do for the Constitution or for the language of our laws.

It cannot live without her, it is a part of her and her body so she has all say over it.

If that is true - why then did the Supreme Court say this when they were dealing with Roe?

When it can take it's first breath apart from her, it become its own person.

And (again) if that were true, then those who opposed our fetal homicide laws should have had no problem getting those laws blocked or overturned.

The legal reality is that those laws remain intact and they not only define a "child in the womb" as "a human being" they also make the criminal killing of that child a crime of MURDER.

The crime of MURDER means that the victim killed is/ was a human being.

A person.

Some women enjoy being pregnant, good for them, some are afraid, don't want or have had a problem and are unwilling to try again. Some are told they should not due to preconditions and o

No one has the right to violate the rights of another. Especially not the rights of a child.

No one has a right to her medical records or her conversations with her doctor. no one should even know she is pregnant or of her choice.

We don't need to know all that in order to have laws against the violation of children's rights by abortions.

>>The measure goes on to say that it need not be proven that the assailant had knowledge that the woman was pregnant or had any specific intent to harm her child. If however, "the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall... [be] punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.<<

I know very well

 

[Chuz Life]

Zygotes and fetuses are not "persons" entitled to rights superior to the rights of adult pregnant women.

If that's true, you should have no problem overturning the MURDER convictions of those already convicted under our fetal HOMICIDE laws.

So far, our Supreme Court refuses to overturn those convictions.

Why do you sit quietly by while those convicted rot in jail for crimes that (according to you) they did not commit?

 

[Chuz Life]

Till the last trimester if the mother dies in an accident you are not charged with two deaths. You have to know she is pregnant or it is visible that she is pregnant. Does not apply in the first trimester at all.

Again, you are showing that you are not familiar with the language of our fetal homicide laws and /or with any of the convictions that are already being upheld by our Supreme Court.

I will grant that convictions are difficult and many arrests often lead to plea deals and such. However, the language is clear that the gestational age of the child killed does not matter.

Till it is out of her body, or old enough that it might survive outside, it is not a person.

I understand that is your belief and that is your opinion. It is not what the language of the laws is, however.

It is a parasite feeding off her, making her sick, deforming her body, causing pain, making breathing difficult, even moving and standing up can be a obstacle.

The parent child relationship is not scientifically recognized as parasitic. It is symbiotic. Primarily because the production of offspring is necessary for the survival of the species and "parasites" do not attach themselves and live at the detriment of their own kind.

You seem to have even less an appreciation of the scientific facts than you do for the Constitution or for the language of our laws.

It cannot live without her, it is a part of her and her body so she has all say over it.

If that is true - why then did the Supreme Court say this when they were dealing with Roe?

When it can take it's first breath apart from her, it become its own person.

And (again) if that were true, then those who opposed our fetal homicide laws should have had no problem getting those laws blocked or overturned.

The legal reality is that those laws remain intact and they not only define a "child in the womb" as "a human being" they also make the criminal killing of that child a crime of MURDER.

The crime of MURDER means that the victim killed is/ was a human being.

A person.

Some women enjoy being pregnant, good for them, some are afraid, don't want or have had a problem and are unwilling to try again. Some are told they should not due to preconditions and o

No one has the right to violate the rights of another. Especially not the rights of a child.

No one has a right to her medical records or her conversations with her doctor. no one should even know she is pregnant or of her choice.

We don't need to know all that in order to have laws against the violation of children's rights by abortions.

>>The measure goes on to say that it need not be proven that the assailant had knowledge that the woman was pregnant or had any specific intent to harm her child. If however, "the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall... [be] punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.<<

I know very well

Need NOT be proven.

 

[Chuz Life]

Pro abortion is defined as anti life.

No one is pro abortion.

Not even those who proudly claim to be pro abortion?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Pro abortion is defined as anti life.

No one is pro abortion.

Not even those who proudly claim to be pro abortion?

Pro choice is not pro abortion. I prefer looking for alternatives and ways to reduce the need for abortion.