Proof for the pro abortion crowd

[LuvRPgrl]

One cannot discuss what to do with something inside a woman's body without infringing on her right to sovereignty over her person.

Any discussion of unborn babies, fetuses, genetic material, cellular masses, unformed life, human potential, etc. are irrelevant until the woman's body is no longer the 'arena'.

Anything inside my body is nobody else's beeswax. Well, except for those coke-filled condoms I swallowed, those I have to return.

Well, thats simply not true. NO rights are unrestricted. When two rights become conflicting, one has to prevail. I think most would agree the right to a persons life trumps any right to sovereignty over her body, which, by the way, I have never read in the Constitution anyways.

People lose their right to sovereignty over their body all the time. If she doesnt want to forfeit that right, dont have sex. If I dont want to forfeit my right to spend my paycheck how I want, then I need to make sure I dont get any women pregnant.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Are you then abandoning the fallacious argument that sex-education promotes pre-marital sex?.

How can I abandon something I never stated?

I don't know what planet you live on, but pre-marital sex has never been rare..

I didnt say it was rare. I said it wasnt the norm. You do seem to be ignoring the fact that teens are having sex at younger and younger ages, more often, and having their menstrual cycles start at a much earlier age. Not to mention, more women are waiting til later to get married, or not marry at all. ALL of which lead to more unwanted pregnancies, yet ALL of those are things the liberals support. So, apparently liberals dont support reducing unwanted pregnancies.

What you did see however was pregnancy leading to a quick marriage. To suggest pre-marital sex is some new-fangled social disorder is ridiculous and baseless.

You can argue until your head explodes, but you can't refute this fact: The most effective way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The most effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is through effective use of contraception.

WOW,,,not necessarily so. Those are VERY ABSOLUTE statements.

 

[glockmail]

It wouldn't be there if not for him, so because it is entirely part of her body, like everything else that is part of her body, it belongs to her. Technically.

Any part of you that isn't yours?

There's a small gap in your logic, I think (in bold). Since the fetus is not of identical makeup of the mother, but the combination of the two people, then it belongs to both people. Unless of course the female did not give the male permission to place sperm in her body (in spite of any inherent risks of getting pregnant.)

As usual, it comes down to a personal responsibility thing. Conservatives insist that individualstake responsibility for their own actions, while liberals refuse to accept responsibility.

 

[MissileMan]

How can I abandon something I never stated?

Check out post 127.

WOW,,,not necessarily so. Those are VERY ABSOLUTE statements.

Because they are ABSOLUTELY true...feel free to refute them though.

 

[Hamiltonian]

I didnt say it was rare. I said it wasnt the norm. You do seem to be ignoring the fact that teens are having sex at younger and younger ages, more often, and having their menstrual cycles start at a much earlier age. Not to mention, more women are waiting til later to get married, or not marry at all. ALL of which lead to more unwanted pregnancies, yet ALL of those are things the liberals support. So, apparently liberals dont support reducing unwanted pregnancies.

Do you know why women are marrying later? The main reason is now that women are considered equal to men. They are becoming educated at colleges and entering the workforce, which makes it harder for them to find time for marriages. Do you support forcing women out of the workforce, or do you just expect liberals to support that?

So how do liberals support teens having sex at a younger age? I've never seen that on any of their talking points.

 

[Gurdari]

Well, thats simply not true. NO rights are unrestricted. When two rights become conflicting, one has to prevail.

Yes - the person whose body is the arena of debate in this case.
The woman's.

I think most would agree the right to a persons life trumps any right to sovereignty over her body, which, by the way, I have never read in the Constitution anyways.

Most? We don't. I think they are one in the same... sovereignty over your own body encompasses your right to life. The Constitution is not the source of all logic, or wisdom, and it has been changed a few times hasn't it?

People lose their right to sovereignty over their body all the time. If she doesnt want to forfeit that right, dont have sex. If I dont want to forfeit my right to spend my paycheck how I want, then I need to make sure I dont get any women pregnant.

People lose that right all the time? When did you lose it?
How does having sex forfeit your rights?

I haven't forfeited anything.

 

[sitarro]

If the father has no rights or responsibility when the baby human is inside the mother, why should he have responsibility once the baby is born? I don't think it is a matter of being able to have it both ways. The father can't force the woman to have an abortion because he can't afford child support. Once again the male and the baby get screwed.

What is amazing is that if a couple gets a puppie together and the woman decided that she can't have a puppie in her life right now, she wants to kill her puppy.......... liberals would have a shit attack.....PETA would organize a protest, the blood suckers from the ACLU would stick their nose in it and she would end up charged with cruelty to animals.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If the father has no rights or responsibility when the baby human is inside the mother, why should he have responsibility once the baby is born? I don't think it is a matter of being able to have it both ways. The father can't force the woman to have an abortion because he can't afford child support. Once again the male and the baby get screwed.

What is amazing is that if a couple gets a puppie together and the woman decided that she can't have a puppie in her life right now, she wants to kill her puppy.......... liberals would have a shit attack.....PETA would organize a protest, the blood suckers from the ACLU would stick their nose in it and she would end up charged with cruelty to animals.

The pro abortion crowd has no consistency or logic behind their agenda.
Fact is, they have other agendas which supercede their pro abortion stance, and come into conflict with OTHER aspects of the pro abortion issue but not their own personal aspect of the pro abortion issue.

For example, NOW, which supports women gaining power demand that the woman has the choice, that its part of her body, that only she can decide before and after birth what will happen with the baby. But that comes into conflict with those who want a person who kills the "unborn fetus" to be able to be charged with murder. Now, the unborn is either an individual human or not. As they say, you cant be kinda pregnant, you cant be kinda human.
SO, if it is an INDIVIDUAL HUMAN, then it can be murder if it is killed. But the problem is that, then it means its NOT part of the womans body, it simply cant be both, and therefore she loses the "complete 100% control and rights of whatever happens to the fetus while in the womb" concept NOW wants.

The pro abortionists never answer all of the questions brought up. They only answer some of them.

So, please, pro choicers, which of the two choices above, would you eliminate? The woman has complete say so because its part of her body? Or, the person who kills the fetus can be charged with murder because it is an individual human being (one cannot be charged for murder if they lop off a persons ear-ask Mike Tyson)?

They also cannot point to a specific time when it becomes an individual human being. Pro lifers do, point of conception. Pro abortionists are all over the map, when the cord is cut, when it breathes air, when its viable in the womb, brain activity starts,

They claim we are hypocrites because many support the death penalty. SO WHAT? Its irrelevant, they resort to that because they have such a weak arguement on the real issue. So what, ok, lets say the pro lifers are hypocrites and wrong about the death penalty, that doesnt change the abortion arguement one bit.
The same goes for the claim we wont adopt the unborn babies. SO WHAT, it doesnt change the arguement against abortion one iota whether they are right or wrong about the adoption issue.

ALL science is continuing to come into the side of pro life. They simply cannot respond to the fact that at conception, the fertlilized egg has its own seperate DNA (which is the legal and biological number one consistent factor in deciding a persons identity) and its own gender.
If a scientist took a part of a womans body, any part, her DNA would match, EXCEPT the fetus.
No other part of a womans body can be removed and continue to live on its own.
No other part of the womans body will show that it is actually male. Yea, oh, that penis growing inside me, oh, its just another part of me.
No other part of her body will remove itself permanently within a short period of time, GUARANTEED.
No other part of her body has a seperate respiration rate, and the ability to contain and develope diseases and genetic defects without directly affecting the other parts of her body.
No other part of her body is completely unregulated and unconnected to her nervous system.

In science, when deciding if something fits a definition, it depends on how much of it fits the description of other items within that definition. A great example is pluto. Pluto had been defined as a planet because it had more aspects that fit the definition than didnt. However, recent revelations of Pluto have taken it off that perch. It was always precarious to start with. The extra info tilted it off. If an item has too many aspects that dont fit a defintion, then it is not part of that defining group. A part of a womans body, the fetus simply has too many, and too many MAJOR aspects that dont fit the definition.

IT simply is not part of her body. It is an individual human being, and anyone who argues otherwise is stupid, ignorant, or has their head in the sand and is delusional.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Check out post 127..

can you post my actual quote?

Because they are ABSOLUTELY true...feel free to refute them though.

Actually, abstaining from intercourse unless you want a baby, is more likely to assure no unwanted pregnancies, since we all know condoms and all other methods of birth control do not have a 100% success rate.

But aside from that, why is it that a pregnancy being unwanted is enough to justify killing the baby? I have many unwanted bills, can I just toss them?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

One cannot discuss what to do with something inside a woman's body without infringing on her right to sovereignty over her person.

Any discussion of unborn babies, fetuses, genetic material, cellular masses, unformed life, human potential, etc. are irrelevant until the woman's body is no longer the 'arena'.

Anything inside my body is nobody else's beeswax. Well, except for those coke-filled condoms I swallowed, those I have to return.

So, if I steal some of your diamonds, then I can have them inserted under my skin and you cant do anything to have them retrieved? Hmmm, thought so...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Do you know why women are marrying later? The main reason is now that women are considered equal to men. They are becoming educated at colleges and entering the workforce, which makes it harder for them to find time for marriages. Do you support forcing women out of the workforce, or do you just expect liberals to support that?

So how do liberals support teens having sex at a younger age? I've never seen that on any of their talking points.

There are many reasons women are marrying later. Not just the one you state.
"equal to men"??? what exactly does that mean? MOST people dont believe that.
I dont support FORCING them out of the workplace, but I do support those who want a wife who is not in the workforce.

hahahah, liberals dont support teens having sex? Well, they dont do it directly, but indirectly. Kinda like, I dont support people driving cars, I merely build roads. But you will never hear me say people should have the right to drive cars and pollute, you see, I actually build these huge roads for people to walk and bicycle on (rightttttttttt)

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes - the person whose body is the arena of debate in this case.
The woman's..

right to sovereignty over ones body is not the same as right to life. People lose their sovereignty all the time (imprisoned) without losing their right to life. Right to life supercedes right to sovereignty.

Most? We don't. I think they are one in the same... sovereignty over your own body encompasses your right to life. The Constitution is not the source of all logic, or wisdom, and it has been changed a few times hasn't it?.

nope, sovereignty is encompassed BY right to life.
But it is the source of all our laws and rights. So, where is this right to sovereignty in the Constitution?

People lose that right all the time? When did you lose it?
How does having sex forfeit your rights?

I haven't forfeited anything.

I ;havent lost it, I didnt say all people lose it, so why do you assume I did?
Men lose that right when they impregnate a woman.
WOman lose it when they are impregnanted by a man.
Sex CAN forfeit that life by creating another life. That life, and its right to life, supercedes the sovereignty right. The two collide while in the womans body.
You have a right to free speech. But people have a right to be protected in public arena. So, your free speech rights collide with the safety in public rights when in a theatre, you are not given the right to yell FIRE ! ALL rights have limitations, none have carte blanche.
Right to life is forfeited when you illegally take anothers life, there are not too many other examples, if any. but that is one.
right to sovereignty is forfeited when anothers right to life will be taken away by enforcing the right to sovereignty.

 

[glockmail]

The pro abortion crowd has no consistency or logic behind their agenda.......

I think they do, actually; it's just not part of their stated agenda.

Like all Liberals, abortionists want less human life on the planet. This explains their support of global warming issues, The UN, ignorance of Islamo-fascism, and hatred of capitalism.

 

[Gurdari]

right to sovereignty over ones body is not the same as right to life. People lose their sovereignty all the time (imprisoned) without losing their right to life. Right to life supercedes right to sovereignty.

Not exactly - can we do experiments on prisoners against their will? Can we harvest their organs for medical procedures? They have sovereignty OVER THERE OWN BODY, not general sovereignty...

nope, sovereignty is encompassed BY right to life.
But it is the source of all our laws and rights. So, where is this right to sovereignty in the Constitution? .

Again, no. You just stated that prisoners have a right to life (most) but no sovereignty - so how can a right they do NOT have encompass one they do?

I ;havent lost it, I didnt say all people lose it, so why do you assume I did?
Men lose that right when they impregnate a woman.
WOman lose it when they are impregnanted by a man.
Sex CAN forfeit that life by creating another life. That life, and its right to life, supercedes the sovereignty right. The two collide while in the womans body.

Sorry - you have to back this stuff up... somehow... unless they are just opinions, give me some logical reason why the woman's sovereignty is forfeited - that's our real debate here.

You have a right to free speech. But people have a right to be protected in public arena. So, your free speech rights collide with the safety in public rights when in a theatre, you are not given the right to yell FIRE ! ALL rights have limitations, none have carte blanche.
Right to life is forfeited when you illegally take anothers life, there are not too many other examples, if any. but that is one.
right to sovereignty is forfeited when anothers right to life will be taken away by enforcing the right to sovereignty.

I agree with the free speech thing, but how does that relate? Either you believe you are the authority over your own body - or you think someone else is. I am the authority over my body...