It is certainly true that those who support abortion are monsters...

[Dragonlady]

Your argument isn’t whether or not a fetus is cute and adorable. It’s whether it has a right to life which supercedes any rights it’s mother has to privacy or security of person. And the answer is still NO.

Your arguments are still based on the false notion that abortions are a matter of convenience for single women and this is simply false.

Abortions which take place after 20 weeks are the medically necesssry abortions and those must remain available. No woman carries a child for 6 months and casually changed her mind about the pregnancy.

There is simply no reason whatsoever to criminalize abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. These are medical decisions and again. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN HAS AN ABORTION.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Who was this directed to? You didn't post a quote. And you didn't answer my question. Do you see anything wrong with killing a full-term, healthy baby one day before delivery, for no reason? Please answer yes or no.

Your question is ridiculous because no one aborts a healthy full term fetus one day before birth. Late term abortions are only done in cases of extreme medical need.

Why do you keep ignoring the question about the rights of the mother?

 

[sakinago]

Your argument isn’t whether or not a fetus is cute and adorable. It’s whether it has a right to life which supercedes any rights it’s mother has to privacy or security of person. And the answer is still NO.

Your arguments are still based on the false notion that abortions are a matter of convenience for single women and this is simply false.

Abortions which take place after 20 weeks are the medically necesssry abortions and those must remain available. No woman carries a child for 6 months and casually changed her mind about the pregnancy.

There is simply no reason whatsoever to criminalize abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. These are medical decisions and again. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN HAS AN ABORTION.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Who was this directed to? You didn't post a quote. And you didn't answer my question. Do you see anything wrong with killing a full-term, healthy baby one day before delivery, for no reason? Please answer yes or no.

Your question is ridiculous because no one aborts a healthy full term fetus one day before birth. Late term abortions are only done in cases of extreme medical need.

Why do you keep ignoring the question about the rights of the mother?

The question isn’t about how many people would do it. Is it ok to do it? From what I’m hearing from you is that yes it is ok because it’s a it’s a women’s right to privacy, and life does not begin until birth. So, is it ok for someone whose pregnant at, we’ll say 38 weeks to decide “I can’t do this, I can’t afford this, i don’t have the time, and I don’t want to be tied to the father, I’m going to abort.”

No one is ignoring the question of rights of the mother. That’s been answered extensively. Rights cannot be given, they are things you are born with, and only extend to the point of not infringing or taking from anyone else’s right. The reason rights cannot be given is because something needs to be taken from someone else. Example given, you have a right to own your labor, meaning no one can force you into work you don’t want to do, conversely no one is forced to hire you. You choose to work at a rate of pay that you agree too, and you are born with the ability to work. There is no obligated taking or giving from any party in that scenario. Do you have a right to healthcare, no, because having the right healthcare would mean that someone’s labor would have to taken from them to provide you that right. On top of that, if healthcare is a right, then I have every right to smoke two packs a day, live off a diet of pixie sticks, potato chips, beer, and soda, while sitting on my ass all day watching Netflix and jump off of my roof if I pleased. It’s a right therefore I get as much treatment as my lifestyle requires. Do you have a right to education, no, because education requires teachers, teachers who may want to go on strike because they aren’t getting paid enough. If it was a right, teachers would then be forced into accepting their wages because of the right to education. Abortion is not a right, because it requires removing the right to life for someone else. Nor is it a privacy issue, since you need a doctor to do it who keeps records of it, records that they share with government. I can breakdance all I want up until I use my breakdancing to kick you in the face.

 

[Dragonlady]

Your suppositions have no basis in reality. Women don’t carry a child for six or seven months and then “change their minds” about carrying it to term. It is pointless to base responses on idiot scenarios that have no basis in reality.

You attribute a level of casualness and inhumanity to these decisions that has no basis in reality, while ignoring the very real issues of poverty and lack of worker protections that drive the abortion rate in the US.

You ignore the poverty and the lack of health care or job protections for low income workers and instead paint these women as selfish who have no morals.

You go with these ridiculous conservative anti-abortion talking points that don’t address any of the real issues driving the reasons for abortions.

 

[Penelope]

What part of this is ANY OF YOUR ******* BUSINESS????

The decision to have a baby is none of your concern. It’s not your life. It’s not your family. You don’t want to be responsible for this child. You don’t want to pay for its health care, housing or education.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don’t have one.

It’s my business just like it’d be anyone’s business to say people should be able to choose to euthanize the low functioning mentally retarded or autistic. This isn’t an issue of people injecting themselves into others business, it’s an issue ending human life or not.

Again you are trying to equate the living with the unborn. They’re not the same and you saying they are doesn’t make it so.

Again you are stripping women of their right to self determination and control of very personal decisions affecting their lives, their families and their futures.

IT’S NOT YOUR DECISION. YOU HAVE NO VOICE HERE.

The unborn are living. There is no other classification for them. It’s not kind of life, it’s not kind of human, it is human life. That’s not my assertion, that is science. If you believe it’s morally wrong to kill butterflys, then it is also morally wrong to kill their caterpillar and cocoon forms.

The choice begins in the act of participating in reproduction. If you do not want a baby, use one of the many very cheap, available, easy to use and extremely effective options to prevent that. Get mirena, take a pill once a day, throw on a hat before hand. People need to be responsible. Using contraception isn’t as hard as planning for retirement, it is taking incredibly easy steps and effective steps to prevent pregnancy. Eliminating the need for abortion is probably one of the easiest problems we could solve in society. Contraception is way more affordable, way safer, and way less emotionally stressful then worrying that you might be pregnant, finding out that you’re pregnant, wrestling with the decisions of to keep or not to keep, and having to undergo invasive surgery. This is where the push should be, it shouldn’t be in pushing for abortion and saying abortion is totally fine. At one point the saying was abortion should be available, safe, and rare. The rare aspect has been completely discarded by the pro-choice side.

I think its time to men to don a condom instead of a female taking a pill. Put two on if you are worried about it, its also prevents transfer of STD's. Time to men to avoid pregnancy and also prevent transfer of STD's.

That’s probably wise in cases of one night stands or budding relationships. Men should definitely take more responsibility in the situation, culturally they just aren’t being taught that.

If married and they don't want kids , get fixed, men still do not have a say if a woman gets an abortion even if married.

 

[Penelope]

Your argument isn’t whether or not a fetus is cute and adorable. It’s whether it has a right to life which supercedes any rights it’s mother has to privacy or security of person. And the answer is still NO.

Your arguments are still based on the false notion that abortions are a matter of convenience for single women and this is simply false.

Abortions which take place after 20 weeks are the medically necesssry abortions and those must remain available. No woman carries a child for 6 months and casually changed her mind about the pregnancy.

There is simply no reason whatsoever to criminalize abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. These are medical decisions and again. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN HAS AN ABORTION.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Who was this directed to? You didn't post a quote. And you didn't answer my question. Do you see anything wrong with killing a full-term, healthy baby one day before delivery, for no reason? Please answer yes or no.

Your question is ridiculous because no one aborts a healthy full term fetus one day before birth. Late term abortions are only done in cases of extreme medical need.

Why do you keep ignoring the question about the rights of the mother?

The question isn’t about how many people would do it. Is it ok to do it? From what I’m hearing from you is that yes it is ok because it’s a it’s a women’s right to privacy, and life does not begin until birth. So, is it ok for someone whose pregnant at, we’ll say 38 weeks to decide “I can’t do this, I can’t afford this, i don’t have the time, and I don’t want to be tied to the father, I’m going to abort.”

No one is ignoring the question of rights of the mother. That’s been answered extensively. Rights cannot be given, they are things you are born with, and only extend to the point of not infringing or taking from anyone else’s right. The reason rights cannot be given is because something needs to be taken from someone else. Example given, you have a right to own your labor, meaning no one can force you into work you don’t want to do, conversely no one is forced to hire you. You choose to work at a rate of pay that you agree too, and you are born with the ability to work. There is no obligated taking or giving from any party in that scenario. Do you have a right to healthcare, no, because having the right healthcare would mean that someone’s labor would have to taken from them to provide you that right. On top of that, if healthcare is a right, then I have every right to smoke two packs a day, live off a diet of pixie sticks, potato chips, beer, and soda, while sitting on my ass all day watching Netflix and jump off of my roof if I pleased. It’s a right therefore I get as much treatment as my lifestyle requires. Do you have a right to education, no, because education requires teachers, teachers who may want to go on strike because they aren’t getting paid enough. If it was a right, teachers would then be forced into accepting their wages because of the right to education. Abortion is not a right, because it requires removing the right to life for someone else. Nor is it a privacy issue, since you need a doctor to do it who keeps records of it, records that they share with government. I can breakdance all I want up until I use my breakdancing to kick you in the face.

Abortion is a right and education is a right as well. Healthcare is a right that the GOP want to deny. So that makes them bro birth only.

 

[deanrd]

Your argument isn’t whether or not a fetus is cute and adorable. It’s whether it has a right to life which supercedes any rights it’s mother has to privacy or security of person. And the answer is still NO.

Your arguments are still based on the false notion that abortions are a matter of convenience for single women and this is simply false.

Abortions which take place after 20 weeks are the medically necesssry abortions and those must remain available. No woman carries a child for 6 months and casually changed her mind about the pregnancy.

There is simply no reason whatsoever to criminalize abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. These are medical decisions and again. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN HAS AN ABORTION.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Who was this directed to? You didn't post a quote. And you didn't answer my question. Do you see anything wrong with killing a full-term, healthy baby one day before delivery, for no reason? Please answer yes or no.

Your question is ridiculous because no one aborts a healthy full term fetus one day before birth. Late term abortions are only done in cases of extreme medical need.

Why do you keep ignoring the question about the rights of the mother?

The question isn’t about how many people would do it. Is it ok to do it? From what I’m hearing from you is that yes it is ok because it’s a it’s a women’s right to privacy, and life does not begin until birth. So, is it ok for someone whose pregnant at, we’ll say 38 weeks to decide “I can’t do this, I can’t afford this, i don’t have the time, and I don’t want to be tied to the father, I’m going to abort.”

No one is ignoring the question of rights of the mother. That’s been answered extensively. Rights cannot be given, they are things you are born with, and only extend to the point of not infringing or taking from anyone else’s right. The reason rights cannot be given is because something needs to be taken from someone else. Example given, you have a right to own your labor, meaning no one can force you into work you don’t want to do, conversely no one is forced to hire you. You choose to work at a rate of pay that you agree too, and you are born with the ability to work. There is no obligated taking or giving from any party in that scenario. Do you have a right to healthcare, no, because having the right healthcare would mean that someone’s labor would have to taken from them to provide you that right. On top of that, if healthcare is a right, then I have every right to smoke two packs a day, live off a diet of pixie sticks, potato chips, beer, and soda, while sitting on my ass all day watching Netflix and jump off of my roof if I pleased. It’s a right therefore I get as much treatment as my lifestyle requires. Do you have a right to education, no, because education requires teachers, teachers who may want to go on strike because they aren’t getting paid enough. If it was a right, teachers would then be forced into accepting their wages because of the right to education. Abortion is not a right, because it requires removing the right to life for someone else. Nor is it a privacy issue, since you need a doctor to do it who keeps records of it, records that they share with government. I can breakdance all I want up until I use my breakdancing to kick you in the face.

Abortion is a right and education is a right as well. Healthcare is a right that the GOP want to deny. So that makes them bro birth only.

If I had to guess I would say they hate the born. Nothing else makes sense.

 

[Montrovant]

Ahhh, so you've decided that this one thing of all others in the world is just so special and important that it is exempt from YOUR OWN MORAL STANDARDS. As far as I'm concerned, what I just heard is, "Right and wrong are defined by what I, and only I, want at the moment."

The abortion debate isn’t a question of morality. It’s a question of privacy and my right to control my life and the size of my family.

You keep trying to make this discussion about something else - your version of morality, or what you think your God would want.

I chose to have my baby. There was a cost. I never got my MBA. And I’ve never regretted my decision. But it was my decision to make.

Another friend found out she was pregnant after she had separated from her husband. She chose to end the pregnancy and wait until she was in a better situation. She had just moved to a new city to start a new life and hadn’t even found a job at that point. She also wanted to sever all ties with her husband going forward. A child is an unbreakable tie.

I am a religious woman. I believe that God have us the ability to choose. Not all embryos are viable. Just as all conditions are not ideal. God gave us choice because in times of war, famine, or other catastrophes, it’s not always possible or reasonable for women to have babies. Sometimes, the risk to both mother and child is too great.

Whatever your beliefs, allowing women to make their own choices based on their own beliefs and their own situations is the best route to go.

Pro-choice is the only unreasonable solution.

No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.

Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

 

[Penelope]

The abortion debate isn’t a question of morality. It’s a question of privacy and my right to control my life and the size of my family.

You keep trying to make this discussion about something else - your version of morality, or what you think your God would want.

I chose to have my baby. There was a cost. I never got my MBA. And I’ve never regretted my decision. But it was my decision to make.

Another friend found out she was pregnant after she had separated from her husband. She chose to end the pregnancy and wait until she was in a better situation. She had just moved to a new city to start a new life and hadn’t even found a job at that point. She also wanted to sever all ties with her husband going forward. A child is an unbreakable tie.

I am a religious woman. I believe that God have us the ability to choose. Not all embryos are viable. Just as all conditions are not ideal. God gave us choice because in times of war, famine, or other catastrophes, it’s not always possible or reasonable for women to have babies. Sometimes, the risk to both mother and child is too great.

Whatever your beliefs, allowing women to make their own choices based on their own beliefs and their own situations is the best route to go.

Pro-choice is the only unreasonable solution.

No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.

Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

 

[ph3iron]

...I said a dead baby is a dead baby, and your justifications and excuses won't wash the blood away.

A pro-abortion person marked my post as "funny."

So, pro-abortion people think dead babies are "funny."

Anyone who thinks a dead baby is funny is damned.

As a proud "zip it up, see you later" guy I'm all for coat hangars.
How many adopted kids do you have again?

 

[ph3iron]

They probably just think you are ******* retarded. Like most of us do..

When I am in heaven and you are in hell, I will ask God to send me down to give you a drop of water, and God will say no.

So I'm sending you water now. Repent, or be damned.

How much money do you give to your kid raping org, mr. pure spirit?
People like you make me sick. You probably make your god sick, too.

There is a god?
I thought there was a few thousands

 

[jc456]

t I want to know from these people who think they have a right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies is this: How is your personal life affected by a woman, who you don't know and never will, decides to have an abortion? Why do you think you have the right to dictate to her what kind of medical decisions she should be allowed to make? And finally, would you be okay with the government dictating what kind of medical decisions you are allowed to make?
It seems that everyone wants smaller government unless it's governing women's' uteruses.

we're a moral society who don't kill children. period end of story.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The only outcome of banning abortion is that some doctors and midwives will go to prison, and doctors will have a booming business in performing D & C's. Abortions will not stop. Aborting women will not go to prison. RW nuts will feel like they saved the world, when, of course, nothing has been done except give the federal government the right to control bodies of women, only.

 

[buttercup]

Your question is ridiculous because no one aborts a healthy full term fetus one day before birth. Late term abortions are only done in cases of extreme medical need.

Why do you keep ignoring the question about the rights of the mother?

Logic isn't your forte, is it? It doesn't matter how many occur, I am holding you to your own words. You stated that life doesn't begin until birth. According to your own logic, that makes it perfectly acceptable to kill a healthy, full-term baby, moments before birth. You just don't have the balls to admit it. Which leads me to believe that you don't actually believe your own evil position.

If it was actually true that life begins at birth and that women have the right to privacy, then that would apply throughout the entire pregnancy, even up until the very last moments. OBVIOUSLY that isn't the case. Only a sociopath would think otherwise.

And to answer your question, I'm not ignoring the rights of the mother. Does a mother have the right to kill a newborn baby? Or a toddler, or a child? No, because nobody has the right to take an innocent human life. The difference between proaborts and prolifers is that we correctly recognize that the baby in the womb is a human being, and as innocent as it gets. You base humanity on location, which is absurd and ignorant.

That is why we have been telling you over and over and over that this entire debate hinges on when human life begins. It doesn't hinge on bodily autonomy, privacy or anything like that. That is easily demonstrated to be false, by my example above. That is why you won't directly answer the question, because you know it.

 

[buttercup]

The whole debate is not about when the fetus has life. The debate is whether or not a woman is entitled to make private decisions about her life and her body without state interference. Does she in fact have “security of person” as set out in the Constitiution and the Bill of Rights.

If you actually believe that life doesn't start until birth, and that there's nothing wrong with any abortion throughout the entire pregnancy, then you basically support infanticide. Why, because by your logic it is perfectly acceptable for a woman who is one day away from delivery to butcher her full-term, healthy baby… for no reason at all....simply because the baby is inside of her. Is that what you really believe?

Please answer this question honestly. Look at the baby below and please confirm that you believe it is perfectly acceptable to ram scissors into the back of his head, and suck out his brain, for no reason at all except that the baby happens to be inside the mother. Please answer with a yes or no. You have stated repeatedly that you believe life begins at birth, and that there's nothing wrong with abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. So please confirm that you see nothing wrong with killing the baby below, and even a baby who is older, that is no different than a newborn.

What age is that fetus?

If I'm not mistaken, about 20 weeks. But Dragonlady stated that she thinks life doesn't begin until birth and that women have the right to privacy throughout the entire pregnancy, so according to her, it is acceptable to kill a baby many weeks older and more developed than that one in the photo.

And just to remind you guys, premature babies have survived outside of the womb as early as 21 weeks. So Dragonlady's position makes it acceptable to kill babies OLDER than those premature babies at the local neonatal unit...The only difference? Location.

 

[Dragonlady]

Your question is ridiculous because no one aborts a healthy full term fetus one day before birth. Late term abortions are only done in cases of extreme medical need.

Why do you keep ignoring the question about the rights of the mother?

Logic isn't your forte, is it? It doesn't matter how many occur, I am holding you to your own words. You stated that life doesn't begin until birth. According to your own logic, that makes it perfectly acceptable to kill a healthy, full-term baby, moments before birth. You just don't have the balls to admit it. Which leads me to believe that you don't actually believe your own evil position.

If it was actually true that life begins at birth and that women have the right to privacy, then that would apply throughout the entire pregnancy, even up until the very last moments. OBVIOUSLY that isn't the case. Only a sociopath would think otherwise.

And to answer your question, I'm not ignoring the rights of the mother. Does a mother have the right to kill a newborn baby? Or a toddler, or a child? No, because nobody has the right to take an innocent human life. The difference between proaborts and prolifers is that we correctly recognize that the baby in the womb is a human being, and as innocent as it gets. You base humanity on location, which is absurd and ignorant.

That is why we have been telling you over and over and over that this entire debate hinges on when human life begins. It doesn't hinge on bodily autonomy, privacy or anything like that. That is easily demonstrated to be false, by my example above. That is why you won't directly answer the question, because you know it.

Stop with your bullshit.

I said that according to the law and from the dawn of time, life begins at birth. Let’s stick with reality and not your fanciful notions which have no basis in law or in fact.

I’m not going to dignify your stupid questions about aborting a healthy fetus one day before birth. Your making up ridiculous scenarios to try to support your belief that abortion should be illegal st some point in the pregnancy.

Abortion should be a matter between a woman and her doctor. AT ALL TIMES.

In 1989, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Canada’s abortion law was unconstitutional. There has been no abortion law in Canada since that time.

Canadian women can go to the doctor at any time during their pregnancy and request an abortion. And our government funded health care will pay for it.

We don’t have employers complaining that using their tax dollars to pay for abortions violates their religious beliefs. The Catholic Church pays for health care which fund contraceptives and abortions, as do all churches, and not once have they complained.

Your government is allowing employers to bully employees over what their health insurance covers and other things that are really none of their business and they should not be allowed to control.

Pro-choice allows everyone to make their own choices based on their own religion and their own beliefs. If you believe an abortion is wrong, simply don’t have one.

 

[buttercup]

Stop with your bullshit.

I said that according to the law and from the dawn of time, life begins at birth. Let’s stick with reality and not your fanciful notions which have no basis in law or in fact.

Not only is that false, but you are being intellectually dishonest, because you can't be foolish enough to believe that laws are always correct and always constitute truth. The law once said that blacks were 3/5 a person and that slavery was legal, did it being legal make it right? You probably won't answer that, but since we both know the answer to that question, your point above is moot. It doesn't matter what the law currently says, since man-made laws do not constitute actual truth.

I’m not going to dignify your stupid questions about aborting a healthy fetus one day before birth. Your making up ridiculous scenarios to try to support your belief that abortion should be illegal st some point in the pregnancy.

Abortion should be a matter between a woman and her doctor. AT ALL TIMES.

No, you won't answer it because you don't have the cajones to stand by your own position. It's not a stupid question at all, I'm holding you to your own words and your own logic. The example shows that your logic doesn't hold up, but you're so invested in your unyielding position, that you simply can't back down, so you refuse to answer the question. Sad.

In 1989, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Canada’s abortion law was unconstitutional. There has been no abortion law in Canada since that time.

Canadian women can go to the doctor at any time during their pregnancy and request an abortion. And our government funded health care will pay for it.

We don’t have employers complaining that using their tax dollars to pay for abortions violates their religious beliefs. The Catholic Church pays for health care which fund contraceptives and abortions, as do all churches, and not once have they complained.

Your government is allowing employers to bully employees over what their health insurance covers and other things that are really none of their business and they should not be allowed to control.

Pro-choice allows everyone to make their own choices based on their own religion and their own beliefs. If you believe an abortion is wrong, simply don’t have one.

Abortion is not healthcare, and as sakinago already explained to you, it's not a right. In the US, according to our own founding documents, ALL people are created equal, and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion goes against our own founding principles, and it cheapens human life, which ultimately is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Montrovant]

No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.

Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

What may or may not have happened in the future doesn't matter, though. If a fetus, before a certain stage of development, is not a person, is in fact an extension of the mother's body, how can the fetus be murdered?

 

[jc456]

The only outcome of banning abortion is that some doctors and midwives will go to prison, and doctors will have a booming business in performing D & C's. Abortions will not stop. Aborting women will not go to prison. RW nuts will feel like they saved the world, when, of course, nothing has been done except give the federal government the right to control bodies of women, only.

LOL!!

 

[jc456]

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

What may or may not have happened in the future doesn't matter, though. If a fetus, before a certain stage of development, is not a person, is in fact an extension of the mother's body, how can the fetus be murdered?

People it is simple, there is but one question, is a fetus alive?

 

[buttercup]