CDZ Justifiable Reasons for Abortion

Are rape, incest, age, life of a woman, inheritable diseases reason for abortion?


  • Total voters
    19
Are rape, incest, age, life of a woman, inheritable diseases, reason for abortion? Have you ever been sexually assaulted? Did your brother have sex with your daughter? Have you ever been or know a woman that had to choose between her child or herself? Do your children stand to inherit disease? Please choose yes or no on the poll. All comments are appreciated.
Rape, incest, and health of woman...yes. the rest of your list...no. Birth control should be used and a pregnancy should be a deliberate act. If the pregnancy happens in an other than deliberate manner, step up and take responsibility for your actions.
 
Care to answer my question?

I did by saying, we could ask Jesse Jackson, the civil rights activist.

We could also ask YOU.

And my reply is the same as Jesse Jackson's, so we would have to ask him. Are you struggling?

Struggling?

No.

I'm exposing your ineptness. With your help, that is. Of course.

You didn't comprehend my answer, you're struggling. Sort yourself out.

Anyone with a nominal amount of reading comprehension can scroll back and see that you are doding and diverting from a direct question. A question based on a point that YOU raised, yourself.

Now, if you want to admit that you were simply trolling in the CDZ, you should do so.

You're the type of person that expects to see answers to your criteria, I've met plenty of those characters. They feel as though they're significant but they're insignificant. Climb down off your soap box.

Jesse Jackson is a prime example where someone who was conceived from rape went on to do great things for civil rights and you want to flush them down the plughole.

Pro abortionists are abhorrent human beings. Does that answer your question, fucking dumdass.
 
You're the type of person that expects to see answers to your criteria, I've met plenty of those characters. They feel as though they're significant but they're insignificant. Climb down off your soap box.

Jesse Jackson is a prime example where someone who was conceived from rape went on to do great things for civil rights and you want to flush them down the plughole.

Pro abortionists are abhorrent human beings. Does that answer your question, fucking dumdass.

Your clear violation of the CDZ rules aside, I WANT no such thing.

You know, you could have simply answered "NO."

Nobody has the right to violate the civil rights of another.

Or, you could have answered YES, if you think they do.

I simply asked the question and you chose to become triggered.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Let's all calm down here.

Jesse Jackson is a prime example where someone who was conceived from rape went on to do great things for civil rights and you want to flush them down the plughole.

Jesse Jackson (who rode on MLK's coattails during King's life) has done nothing positive for racial civil rights in over 50 years. He has only sought personal gain (often via shake-downs) and created more racial division.

On the topic of abortion (getting back to this thread), Jesse Jackson did in his earlier days speak out against abortion.

"Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore abortion can be justified." (source)

Jackson endorsed the Hyde Amendment in an open letter to Congress that opposed federal funds used for "killing infants." Mr. Jackson wrote the following statements in a 1977 National Right to Life News article: "There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life ... that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.

"What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth." (source)


Jesse Jackson would then run for President as a Democrat. To do so, like many other Democrats who had previously abandoned previous pro-life sentiments (e.g., Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Edward Kennedy), he abandoned the anti-abortion stance and adopted pro abortion legalization language. Which indicates he may have never true convictions of conscience.

I refuse to consider or call Jesse Jackson as a civil rights advocate nor a reverend. He fails in both categories.

Pro abortionists are abhorrent human beings. Does that answer your question [last two words redacted]

You don't need to add those last two words. All that does is provoke more anger.
 
Are rape, incest, age, life of a woman, inheritable diseases, reason for abortion? Have you ever been sexually assaulted? Did your brother have sex with your daughter? Have you ever been or know a woman that had to choose between her child or herself? Do your children stand to inherit disease? Please choose yes or no on the poll. All comments are appreciated.
Rape, incest, and health of woman...yes. the rest of your list...no. Birth control should be used and a pregnancy should be a deliberate act. If the pregnancy happens in an other than deliberate manner, step up and take responsibility for your actions.
A woman choosing to have an abortion IS taking responsibility for her actions. She might be taking an action you disagree with, but she is, by the very definition of the phrase, taking responsibility.
 
Are rape, incest, age, life of a woman, inheritable diseases, reason for abortion? Have you ever been sexually assaulted? Did your brother have sex with your daughter? Have you ever been or know a woman that had to choose between her child or herself? Do your children stand to inherit disease? Please choose yes or no on the poll. All comments are appreciated.
I don't care what the reason they use for the first 12 weeks. They could just decide they didn't want to be a parent. After that it gets murky for me.
 
" Obvious Constitutional Protections In Place "

* Argumentative Words Chosen Unwisely *

Does any person have the civil right to violate the civil rights of another?
Well , duh and true doh .

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
 
" Obvious Constitutional Protections In Place "

* Argumentative Words Chosen Unwisely *

Does any person have the civil right to violate the civil rights of another?
Well , duh and true doh .

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

From your own (expletive omitted per the CDZ rules) link.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at ANY point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
 
Last edited:
" Brevity Is Best "

* Standard Catch All Filter *

From your own (expletive omitted per the CDZ rules) link.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at ANY point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
The clause does not provide any lesser or greater relevance to the definition of a person as it relates with birth as a requirement for equal protection according to us constitution .

 
It doesn't matter, individual women are given the power to end a developing life for whatever reason. Men really need to think about this before having procreational type sex.
 
" Brevity Is Best "

* Standard Catch All Filter *

From your own (expletive omitted per the CDZ rules) link.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at ANY point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
The clause does not provide any lesser or greater relevance to the definition of a person as it relates with birth as a requirement for equal protection according to us constitution .


*TLAs 4 Dummies*

FHL

FETAL

HOMICIDE

LAWS.
 
" Grasping At Straws "

* Conflagration Without Relevance *

*TLAs 4 Dummies* FHL FETAL HOMICIDE LAWS.
Violations of a fetus well being by malevolent actors are offenses against the mother , irrespective of the political science and legal context ignorance , or politically insightful motivations of the legislative body .

The proscriptions against abortion in third trimester are not wrights of a fetus , just as restrictions on cutting down a forest are not the wright of trees , or that laws directing ways to put down an animal are wrights of animals , rather those are restrictions on behaviors of the people .

Though the terms " animal wrights " or " environmental wrights " are often interchanged with restrictions , the technical distinction persists .
 
Last edited:
" Grasping At Straws "

* Conflagration Without Relevance *

*TLAs 4 Dummies* FHL FETAL HOMICIDE LAWS.
Violations of a fetus well being are offenes against the mother , irrespective of the political science and legal context ignorance , or politically insightful motivations of the legislative body .

None thinks to themselves that a restrictions on cutting down a forest are a wright of the trees , or that laws directing that the only humane way to put down an animal are wrights of animals rather than restrictions on the behaviors of the public .

*Factual information Tossed into an ignorant abyss*

*Grasping for Intellectually Honest Mental receptors*


(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 (MURDER), 1112 (MANSLAUGHTER), and 1113 (Attempt to commit murder or manslaughter) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. -https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

Your denials have already been defeated.
 
Last edited:
This was always my take on abortion. I’m pro choice. I prefer that women choose life, but understand why they feel they cannot.

Do you claim to be a supporter of children's rights too?

Of course
Really?

What logic do you use to conclude that a child's rights should not begin when their life does?

Because people have differing views as to when that occurs.

Differing views do not change (or Trump) biological facts.
 
This was always my take on abortion. I’m pro choice. I prefer that women choose life, but understand why they feel they cannot.

Do you claim to be a supporter of children's rights too?

Of course
Really?

What logic do you use to conclude that a child's rights should not begin when their life does?

Because people have differing views as to when that occurs.

Differing views do not change (or Trump) biological facts.

And that’s where we’re going to disagree and bump heads.
 
This was always my take on abortion. I’m pro choice. I prefer that women choose life, but understand why they feel they cannot.

Do you claim to be a supporter of children's rights too?

Of course
Really?

What logic do you use to conclude that a child's rights should not begin when their life does?

Because people have differing views as to when that occurs.

Differing views do not change (or Trump) biological facts.

And that’s where we’re going to disagree and bump heads.

Biological Children have biological parents.

Care to explain what it is that makes a biological father a biological "parent" if the thing he helped create at conception was anything less than his biological child?

I won't hold my breath, waiting.
 

Forum List

Back
Top