What Would Be So Awful About Overturning Roe v. Wade & Saving Unborn Children's Lives?

[P@triot]

The current standards of today define murder as a legal term you dimwit.

Hey assclap? Could you please point us to a "Murder Detective" in the "Murder Division" of the nearest law enforcement agency?

(Psst...it's a homicide detective in the homicide division)

Why would I need to do that when I can just point you to a court of law and show you where people are charged with murder?

In other words...you can't! Game. Set. Match.

 

[Asclepias]

The current standards of today define murder as a legal term you dimwit.

Hey assclap? Could you please point us to a "Murder Detective" in the "Murder Division" of the nearest law enforcement agency?

(Psst...it's a homicide detective in the homicide division)

Why would I need to do that when I can just point you to a court of law and show you where people are charged with murder?

In other words...you can't! Game. Set. Match.

Says the guy that claims murder is not a legal term.

 

[P@triot]

How can I be wrong when you were the one that didnt know murder was a legal term?

Because the legal term is homicide.

This is why you should have stayed in school instead of hooking up with desperate crack hoes and fathering multiple children with multiple crack hoes. You wouldn't be quite so uneducated.

Dude ... what the ****?

What is your evidence for this accusation?

He told us. I didn't need "evidence". I merely took his word for it.

 

[Asclepias]

How can I be wrong when you were the one that didnt know murder was a legal term?

Because the legal term is homicide.

This is why you should have stayed in school instead of hooking up with desperate crack hoes and fathering multiple children with multiple crack hoes. You wouldn't be quite so uneducated.

Dude ... what the ****?

What is your evidence for this accusation?

He told us. I didn't need "evidence". I merely took his word for it.

Says the guy that believes murder is not a legal term...

 

[beagle9]

Similarly, according to the pro-abortion lobby, abortion is not a moral choice but just a medical one--the baby's humanity, much less his or her rights, never enter into their arguments.

I'm not part of the 'pro-abortion lobby', but I do think trying to ban abortion with government is a bad idea. The "baby's humanity" is, very much, central to the debate. Your belief that a fetus is a fully realized person, a conscious agent with rights like the rest of us, is the core question. And there's no consensus on that. Your position is a belief, a religious conviction, that you're trying to force on everyone else via the law. Worse yet, you're using your belief as a justification for violating a woman's right to control her own body in the most fundamental way imaginable. You're claiming her womb as a proper jurisdiction of government.

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected. Yes, the woman's body is her own, but once that child begins to form in her body, then she becomes the protector of that human being within her body. If she fails to protect the life she is responsible for, then she has done wrong.

You are just WRONG. It is the woman’s life that is affected. Not just during the time that baby is in her womb, but for all of her life. The baby isn’t capable of becoming a life without her. But the life growing within her will profoundly and irrevocably change the woman and her future life

Having a baby changes a woman’s life. It also changes her body. There’s no going back from it, and these changes occur whether she raises the baby or not. This is why the decision to have the child should always rest with the woman and her doctor.

The moment you give rights to the unborn child, you strip a woman to the right to make the most personal decision a human has to make: will you bind yourself to this person for the rest of your life? More than marriage, motherhood binds a woman to her children.

Some women aren’t in a position to do that. They don’t have the resources. At no time should the state have any say in the process.

Sorry, but yours is an irrational argument steeped deeply into ignoring the childs right to life after conception, and all because a woman somehow is able to look into a crystal ball according to your outrageous opinion, and know what her future holds with the child at her side once born ?? The irony is that you want millions of immigrants to come waltzing in here, because they don't abort their children, and instead they breed them to work, be strong, endure, and believe in God along with these things mentioned with all their heart. So why isn't this good enough for the American women ??

Because American women have been conditioned to believe that if anything hinders their life including an unborn baby, then just discard it like a Burger King wrapper, and just walk away. Meanwhile back at the border.... Pathetic.

 

[Dragonlady]

Similarly, according to the pro-abortion lobby, abortion is not a moral choice but just a medical one--the baby's humanity, much less his or her rights, never enter into their arguments.

I'm not part of the 'pro-abortion lobby', but I do think trying to ban abortion with government is a bad idea. The "baby's humanity" is, very much, central to the debate. Your belief that a fetus is a fully realized person, a conscious agent with rights like the rest of us, is the core question. And there's no consensus on that. Your position is a belief, a religious conviction, that you're trying to force on everyone else via the law. Worse yet, you're using your belief as a justification for violating a woman's right to control her own body in the most fundamental way imaginable. You're claiming her womb as a proper jurisdiction of government.

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected. Yes, the woman's body is her own, but once that child begins to form in her body, then she becomes the protector of that human being within her body. If she fails to protect the life she is responsible for, then she has done wrong.

You are just WRONG. It is the woman’s life that is affected. Not just during the time that baby is in her womb, but for all of her life. The baby isn’t capable of becoming a life without her. But the life growing within her will profoundly and irrevocably change the woman and her future life

Having a baby changes a woman’s life. It also changes her body. There’s no going back from it, and these changes occur whether she raises the baby or not. This is why the decision to have the child should always rest with the woman and her doctor.

The moment you give rights to the unborn child, you strip a woman to the right to make the most personal decision a human has to make: will you bind yourself to this person for the rest of your life? More than marriage, motherhood binds a woman to her children.

Some women aren’t in a position to do that. They don’t have the resources. At no time should the state have any say in the process.

Sorry, but yours is an irrational argument steeped deeply into ignoring the childs right to life after conception, and all because a woman somehow is able to look into a crystal ball according to your outrageous opinion, and know what her future holds with the child at her side once born ?? The irony is that you want millions of immigrants to come waltzing in here, because they don't abort their children, and instead they breed them to work, be strong, endure, and believe in God along with these things mentioned with all their heart. So why isn't this good enough for the American women ??

Because American women have been conditioned to believe that if anything hinders their life including an unborn baby, then just discard it like a Burger King wrapper, and just walk away. Meanwhile back at the border.... Pathetic.

I’m not ignoring the zygote’s rights because the zygote has no rights at conception. That’s a total fallacy. Hence all opinions proceeding from this idea that a zygote has rights have no basis in fact or in law.

Your post is full of the wrong headed notions that characterize rabid right wing opposition to abortion. It views women who obtain abortions as selfish wantons with no thought or care for the child they will never know.

Most of the women who get abortions are already parents - living in poverty, who can ill afford another child, or who will be fired from their jobs as soon as their pregnancies become known.

Abortions are FREE and unrestricted in Canada, and yet our abortion rate is half that of the US. That’s because we have job security and financial supports for pregnant women and maternity leave in the first year.

Right wingers blame women for abortions when it’s their own employment policies and lack of protections for pregnant working women that drive women to end their pregnancies.

Last but not least, if the government has the authority to force women to continue pregnancies they don’t want, does the state also have the right to order women to terminate pregnancies as well.

Say if the state decided there were too many babies being born to poor women, should the state have the right to limit the number of children you have if your family income is too low? And to force poor women to have abortions if they don’t make enough money?

 

[beagle9]

Similarly, according to the pro-abortion lobby, abortion is not a moral choice but just a medical one--the baby's humanity, much less his or her rights, never enter into their arguments.

I'm not part of the 'pro-abortion lobby', but I do think trying to ban abortion with government is a bad idea. The "baby's humanity" is, very much, central to the debate. Your belief that a fetus is a fully realized person, a conscious agent with rights like the rest of us, is the core question. And there's no consensus on that. Your position is a belief, a religious conviction, that you're trying to force on everyone else via the law. Worse yet, you're using your belief as a justification for violating a woman's right to control her own body in the most fundamental way imaginable. You're claiming her womb as a proper jurisdiction of government.

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected. Yes, the woman's body is her own, but once that child begins to form in her body, then she becomes the protector of that human being within her body. If she fails to protect the life she is responsible for, then she has done wrong.

You are just WRONG. It is the woman’s life that is affected. Not just during the time that baby is in her womb, but for all of her life. The baby isn’t capable of becoming a life without her. But the life growing within her will profoundly and irrevocably change the woman and her future life

Having a baby changes a woman’s life. It also changes her body. There’s no going back from it, and these changes occur whether she raises the baby or not. This is why the decision to have the child should always rest with the woman and her doctor.

The moment you give rights to the unborn child, you strip a woman to the right to make the most personal decision a human has to make: will you bind yourself to this person for the rest of your life? More than marriage, motherhood binds a woman to her children.

Some women aren’t in a position to do that. They don’t have the resources. At no time should the state have any say in the process.

Sorry, but yours is an irrational argument steeped deeply into ignoring the childs right to life after conception, and all because a woman somehow is able to look into a crystal ball according to your outrageous opinion, and know what her future holds with the child at her side once born ?? The irony is that you want millions of immigrants to come waltzing in here, because they don't abort their children, and instead they breed them to work, be strong, endure, and believe in God along with these things mentioned with all their heart. So why isn't this good enough for the American women ??

Because American women have been conditioned to believe that if anything hinders their life including an unborn baby, then just discard it like a Burger King wrapper, and just walk away. Meanwhile back at the border.... Pathetic.

I’m not ignoring the zygote’s rights because the zygote has no rights at conception. That’s a total fallacy. Hence all opinions proceeding from this idea that a zygote has rights have no basis in fact or in law.

Your post is full of the wrong headed notions that characterize rabid right wing opposition to abortion. It views women who obtain abortions as selfish wantons with no thought or care for the child they will never know.

Most of the women who get abortions are already parents - living in poverty, who can ill afford another child, or who will be fired from their jobs as soon as their pregnancies become known.

Abortions are FREE and unrestricted in Canada, and yet our abortion rate is half that of the US. That’s because we have job security and financial supports for pregnant women and maternity leave in the first year.

Right wingers blame women for abortions when it’s their own employment policies and lack of protections for pregnant working women that drive women to end their pregnancies.

Last but not least, if the government has the authority to force women to continue pregnancies they don’t want, does the state also have the right to order women to terminate pregnancies as well.

Say if the state decided there were too many babies being born to poor women, should the state have the right to limit the number of children you have if your family income is too low? And to force poor women to have abortions if they don’t make enough money?

All your words are bullcrap once mixed with the leftist opinions on the unfettered immigration of millions to this country, and claiming we have a huge shortage of workers in this country while advocating U.S. women just abort, abort, abort if they feel any pressure created by the propaganda spewed by the left in this country. It's amazing that the left also thinks that government should be involved in keeping abortion legal in this country, but not involve itself in anything pertaining to the morality of the situation or the fall out from the situation. The fall out has been horrendous, but whose counting right ??

 

[John Shaw]

I'm not part of the 'pro-abortion lobby', but I do think trying to ban abortion with government is a bad idea. The "baby's humanity" is, very much, central to the debate. Your belief that a fetus is a fully realized person, a conscious agent with rights like the rest of us, is the core question. And there's no consensus on that. Your position is a belief, a religious conviction, that you're trying to force on everyone else via the law. Worse yet, you're using your belief as a justification for violating a woman's right to control her own body in the most fundamental way imaginable. You're claiming her womb as a proper jurisdiction of government.

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected. Yes, the woman's body is her own, but once that child begins to form in her body, then she becomes the protector of that human being within her body. If she fails to protect the life she is responsible for, then she has done wrong.

You are just WRONG. It is the woman’s life that is affected. Not just during the time that baby is in her womb, but for all of her life. The baby isn’t capable of becoming a life without her. But the life growing within her will profoundly and irrevocably change the woman and her future life

Having a baby changes a woman’s life. It also changes her body. There’s no going back from it, and these changes occur whether she raises the baby or not. This is why the decision to have the child should always rest with the woman and her doctor.

The moment you give rights to the unborn child, you strip a woman to the right to make the most personal decision a human has to make: will you bind yourself to this person for the rest of your life? More than marriage, motherhood binds a woman to her children.

Some women aren’t in a position to do that. They don’t have the resources. At no time should the state have any say in the process.

Sorry, but yours is an irrational argument steeped deeply into ignoring the childs right to life after conception, and all because a woman somehow is able to look into a crystal ball according to your outrageous opinion, and know what her future holds with the child at her side once born ?? The irony is that you want millions of immigrants to come waltzing in here, because they don't abort their children, and instead they breed them to work, be strong, endure, and believe in God along with these things mentioned with all their heart. So why isn't this good enough for the American women ??

Because American women have been conditioned to believe that if anything hinders their life including an unborn baby, then just discard it like a Burger King wrapper, and just walk away. Meanwhile back at the border.... Pathetic.

I’m not ignoring the zygote’s rights because the zygote has no rights at conception. That’s a total fallacy. Hence all opinions proceeding from this idea that a zygote has rights have no basis in fact or in law.

Your post is full of the wrong headed notions that characterize rabid right wing opposition to abortion. It views women who obtain abortions as selfish wantons with no thought or care for the child they will never know.

Most of the women who get abortions are already parents - living in poverty, who can ill afford another child, or who will be fired from their jobs as soon as their pregnancies become known.

Abortions are FREE and unrestricted in Canada, and yet our abortion rate is half that of the US. That’s because we have job security and financial supports for pregnant women and maternity leave in the first year.

Right wingers blame women for abortions when it’s their own employment policies and lack of protections for pregnant working women that drive women to end their pregnancies.

Last but not least, if the government has the authority to force women to continue pregnancies they don’t want, does the state also have the right to order women to terminate pregnancies as well.

Say if the state decided there were too many babies being born to poor women, should the state have the right to limit the number of children you have if your family income is too low? And to force poor women to have abortions if they don’t make enough money?

All your words are bullcrap once mixed with the leftist opinions on the unfettered immigration of millions to this country, and claiming we have a huge shortage of workers in this country while advocating U.S. women just abort, abort, abort if they feel any pressure created by the propaganda spewed by the left in this country. It's amazing that the left also thinks that government should be involved in keeping abortion legal in this country, but not involve itself in anything pertaining to the morality of the situation or the fall out from the situation.

You didn't actually respond to anything.

 

[beagle9]

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected. Yes, the woman's body is her own, but once that child begins to form in her body, then she becomes the protector of that human being within her body. If she fails to protect the life she is responsible for, then she has done wrong.

You are just WRONG. It is the woman’s life that is affected. Not just during the time that baby is in her womb, but for all of her life. The baby isn’t capable of becoming a life without her. But the life growing within her will profoundly and irrevocably change the woman and her future life

Having a baby changes a woman’s life. It also changes her body. There’s no going back from it, and these changes occur whether she raises the baby or not. This is why the decision to have the child should always rest with the woman and her doctor.

The moment you give rights to the unborn child, you strip a woman to the right to make the most personal decision a human has to make: will you bind yourself to this person for the rest of your life? More than marriage, motherhood binds a woman to her children.

Some women aren’t in a position to do that. They don’t have the resources. At no time should the state have any say in the process.

Sorry, but yours is an irrational argument steeped deeply into ignoring the childs right to life after conception, and all because a woman somehow is able to look into a crystal ball according to your outrageous opinion, and know what her future holds with the child at her side once born ?? The irony is that you want millions of immigrants to come waltzing in here, because they don't abort their children, and instead they breed them to work, be strong, endure, and believe in God along with these things mentioned with all their heart. So why isn't this good enough for the American women ??

Because American women have been conditioned to believe that if anything hinders their life including an unborn baby, then just discard it like a Burger King wrapper, and just walk away. Meanwhile back at the border.... Pathetic.

I’m not ignoring the zygote’s rights because the zygote has no rights at conception. That’s a total fallacy. Hence all opinions proceeding from this idea that a zygote has rights have no basis in fact or in law.

Your post is full of the wrong headed notions that characterize rabid right wing opposition to abortion. It views women who obtain abortions as selfish wantons with no thought or care for the child they will never know.

Most of the women who get abortions are already parents - living in poverty, who can ill afford another child, or who will be fired from their jobs as soon as their pregnancies become known.

Abortions are FREE and unrestricted in Canada, and yet our abortion rate is half that of the US. That’s because we have job security and financial supports for pregnant women and maternity leave in the first year.

Right wingers blame women for abortions when it’s their own employment policies and lack of protections for pregnant working women that drive women to end their pregnancies.

Last but not least, if the government has the authority to force women to continue pregnancies they don’t want, does the state also have the right to order women to terminate pregnancies as well.

Say if the state decided there were too many babies being born to poor women, should the state have the right to limit the number of children you have if your family income is too low? And to force poor women to have abortions if they don’t make enough money?

All your words are bullcrap once mixed with the leftist opinions on the unfettered immigration of millions to this country, and claiming we have a huge shortage of workers in this country while advocating U.S. women just abort, abort, abort if they feel any pressure created by the propaganda spewed by the left in this country. It's amazing that the left also thinks that government should be involved in keeping abortion legal in this country, but not involve itself in anything pertaining to the morality of the situation or the fall out from the situation.

You didn't actually respond to anything.

Take in the bigger picture, then begin to put the puzzle together. It's an eye opener.

 

[John Shaw]

You are just WRONG. It is the woman’s life that is affected. Not just during the time that baby is in her womb, but for all of her life. The baby isn’t capable of becoming a life without her. But the life growing within her will profoundly and irrevocably change the woman and her future life

Having a baby changes a woman’s life. It also changes her body. There’s no going back from it, and these changes occur whether she raises the baby or not. This is why the decision to have the child should always rest with the woman and her doctor.

The moment you give rights to the unborn child, you strip a woman to the right to make the most personal decision a human has to make: will you bind yourself to this person for the rest of your life? More than marriage, motherhood binds a woman to her children.

Some women aren’t in a position to do that. They don’t have the resources. At no time should the state have any say in the process.

Sorry, but yours is an irrational argument steeped deeply into ignoring the childs right to life after conception, and all because a woman somehow is able to look into a crystal ball according to your outrageous opinion, and know what her future holds with the child at her side once born ?? The irony is that you want millions of immigrants to come waltzing in here, because they don't abort their children, and instead they breed them to work, be strong, endure, and believe in God along with these things mentioned with all their heart. So why isn't this good enough for the American women ??

Because American women have been conditioned to believe that if anything hinders their life including an unborn baby, then just discard it like a Burger King wrapper, and just walk away. Meanwhile back at the border.... Pathetic.

I’m not ignoring the zygote’s rights because the zygote has no rights at conception. That’s a total fallacy. Hence all opinions proceeding from this idea that a zygote has rights have no basis in fact or in law.

Your post is full of the wrong headed notions that characterize rabid right wing opposition to abortion. It views women who obtain abortions as selfish wantons with no thought or care for the child they will never know.

Most of the women who get abortions are already parents - living in poverty, who can ill afford another child, or who will be fired from their jobs as soon as their pregnancies become known.

Abortions are FREE and unrestricted in Canada, and yet our abortion rate is half that of the US. That’s because we have job security and financial supports for pregnant women and maternity leave in the first year.

Right wingers blame women for abortions when it’s their own employment policies and lack of protections for pregnant working women that drive women to end their pregnancies.

Last but not least, if the government has the authority to force women to continue pregnancies they don’t want, does the state also have the right to order women to terminate pregnancies as well.

Say if the state decided there were too many babies being born to poor women, should the state have the right to limit the number of children you have if your family income is too low? And to force poor women to have abortions if they don’t make enough money?

All your words are bullcrap once mixed with the leftist opinions on the unfettered immigration of millions to this country, and claiming we have a huge shortage of workers in this country while advocating U.S. women just abort, abort, abort if they feel any pressure created by the propaganda spewed by the left in this country. It's amazing that the left also thinks that government should be involved in keeping abortion legal in this country, but not involve itself in anything pertaining to the morality of the situation or the fall out from the situation.

You didn't actually respond to anything.

Take in the bigger picture, then begin to put the puzzle together. It's an eye opener.

You didn't answer the question as to whether the government should have the right to dictate whether the poor have children or not. Should parents who cannot afford another child, but are required to anyway by their state, not then be entitled to financial support from the government (something republicans also don't like)? It seems to me that republicans don't like abortion, but don't really like poor people having children either (aka, more welfare spending). How do you reconcile this? And if you promote poor women from red states to travel to blue states to get a procedure, then what is the point in banning in the first place?

 

[beagle9]

Sorry, but yours is an irrational argument steeped deeply into ignoring the childs right to life after conception, and all because a woman somehow is able to look into a crystal ball according to your outrageous opinion, and know what her future holds with the child at her side once born ?? The irony is that you want millions of immigrants to come waltzing in here, because they don't abort their children, and instead they breed them to work, be strong, endure, and believe in God along with these things mentioned with all their heart. So why isn't this good enough for the American women ??

Because American women have been conditioned to believe that if anything hinders their life including an unborn baby, then just discard it like a Burger King wrapper, and just walk away. Meanwhile back at the border.... Pathetic.

I’m not ignoring the zygote’s rights because the zygote has no rights at conception. That’s a total fallacy. Hence all opinions proceeding from this idea that a zygote has rights have no basis in fact or in law.

Your post is full of the wrong headed notions that characterize rabid right wing opposition to abortion. It views women who obtain abortions as selfish wantons with no thought or care for the child they will never know.

Most of the women who get abortions are already parents - living in poverty, who can ill afford another child, or who will be fired from their jobs as soon as their pregnancies become known.

Abortions are FREE and unrestricted in Canada, and yet our abortion rate is half that of the US. That’s because we have job security and financial supports for pregnant women and maternity leave in the first year.

Right wingers blame women for abortions when it’s their own employment policies and lack of protections for pregnant working women that drive women to end their pregnancies.

Last but not least, if the government has the authority to force women to continue pregnancies they don’t want, does the state also have the right to order women to terminate pregnancies as well.

Say if the state decided there were too many babies being born to poor women, should the state have the right to limit the number of children you have if your family income is too low? And to force poor women to have abortions if they don’t make enough money?

All your words are bullcrap once mixed with the leftist opinions on the unfettered immigration of millions to this country, and claiming we have a huge shortage of workers in this country while advocating U.S. women just abort, abort, abort if they feel any pressure created by the propaganda spewed by the left in this country. It's amazing that the left also thinks that government should be involved in keeping abortion legal in this country, but not involve itself in anything pertaining to the morality of the situation or the fall out from the situation.

You didn't actually respond to anything.

Take in the bigger picture, then begin to put the puzzle together. It's an eye opener.

You didn't answer the question as to whether the government should have the right to dictate whether the poor have children or not. Should parents who cannot afford another child, but are required to anyway by their state, not then be entitled to financial support from the government (something republicans also don't like)? It seems to me that republicans don't like abortion, but don't really like poor people having children either (aka, more welfare spending). How do you reconcile this? And if you promote poor women from red states to travel to blue states to get a procedure, then what is the point in banning in the first place?

Listen, if a woman would just show some restraint in her activities, then she won't be faced with a choice to either keep her baby or kill her baby... And we won't be faced with all these issues on how to deal with her carelessness in life. If she was raised properly, and the left hadn't created a monster propaganda machine run from hellywood, otherwise that tells her that the nanny state will take care of her regardless of her carelessness in life, then these problems would be so rare that we wouldn't be able to see them on the radar. But here we are fighting to reverse the damages of years of idiocy, and the left is battling back with what ever evil spin it can muster in order to keep the status quo going and going and going. The men aren't off the hook either.. The same goes for them in being careless, and they should show some restraint when it comes to impregnating women without giving a crap about the consequences of their actions.

 

[P@triot]

If we take your logic that abortion is murder, then you should advocate arresting and prosecuting women for murder for having them.

Absolutely do! Only an idiot doesn't advocate to charge women and physicians with murder for abortions. Look how many men are charged with murder for slipping their girlfriends "plan B" pills. Remember? I owned you in another thread about this issue.

 

[John Shaw]

I’m not ignoring the zygote’s rights because the zygote has no rights at conception. That’s a total fallacy. Hence all opinions proceeding from this idea that a zygote has rights have no basis in fact or in law.

Your post is full of the wrong headed notions that characterize rabid right wing opposition to abortion. It views women who obtain abortions as selfish wantons with no thought or care for the child they will never know.

Most of the women who get abortions are already parents - living in poverty, who can ill afford another child, or who will be fired from their jobs as soon as their pregnancies become known.

Abortions are FREE and unrestricted in Canada, and yet our abortion rate is half that of the US. That’s because we have job security and financial supports for pregnant women and maternity leave in the first year.

Right wingers blame women for abortions when it’s their own employment policies and lack of protections for pregnant working women that drive women to end their pregnancies.

Last but not least, if the government has the authority to force women to continue pregnancies they don’t want, does the state also have the right to order women to terminate pregnancies as well.

Say if the state decided there were too many babies being born to poor women, should the state have the right to limit the number of children you have if your family income is too low? And to force poor women to have abortions if they don’t make enough money?

All your words are bullcrap once mixed with the leftist opinions on the unfettered immigration of millions to this country, and claiming we have a huge shortage of workers in this country while advocating U.S. women just abort, abort, abort if they feel any pressure created by the propaganda spewed by the left in this country. It's amazing that the left also thinks that government should be involved in keeping abortion legal in this country, but not involve itself in anything pertaining to the morality of the situation or the fall out from the situation.

You didn't actually respond to anything.

Take in the bigger picture, then begin to put the puzzle together. It's an eye opener.

You didn't answer the question as to whether the government should have the right to dictate whether the poor have children or not. Should parents who cannot afford another child, but are required to anyway by their state, not then be entitled to financial support from the government (something republicans also don't like)? It seems to me that republicans don't like abortion, but don't really like poor people having children either (aka, more welfare spending). How do you reconcile this? And if you promote poor women from red states to travel to blue states to get a procedure, then what is the point in banning in the first place?

Listen, if a woman would just show some restraint in her activities, then she won't be faced with a choice to either keep her baby or kill her baby... And we won't be faced with all these issues on how to deal with her carelessness in life. If she was raised properly, and the left hadn't created a monster propaganda machine run from hellywood, otherwise that tells her that the nanny state will take care of her regardless of her carelessness in life, then these problems would be so rare that we wouldn't be able to see them on the radar. But here we are fighting to reverse the damages of years of idiocy, and the left is battling back with what ever evil spin it can muster in order to keep the status quo going and going and going. The men aren't off the hook either.. The same goes for them in being careless, and they should show some restraint when it comes to impregnating women without giving a crap about the consequences of their actions.

You aren't being realistic. Stop blaming Hollywood for human nature. It's ridiculous. You are giving them far too much credit.

You are going to have to pay for others' mistakes whether you like it or not.

 

[P@triot]

The current standards of today define murder as a legal term you dimwit.

Uh...the legal term is homicide you nitwit.

Except women were never charged with homicide when they had abortions before Roe v. Wade.

I understand that. Just like men were never charged with homicide for killing negroes in the 1700's and 1800's. That doesn't make it right. That just means that the immoral left had the votes they needed. We changed it then, hopefully we will be able to change it again.

 

[P@triot]

The “logic” of the left gets more absurd - and thus more comical - with each passing day. They all keep trying this idiotic “but...but...but....it’s not ‘murder’ because it’s legal”.

Uh...we can make anything “legal”. Anything. We can make rape legal. But even in that scenario, you are raping a woman if you are forcing yourself on her. You may not get prosecuted for it. But you’re still raping her.

Likewise, we can make theft “legal”. But if you take something from me without my permission, you’re still stealing. You just won’t be prosecuted for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And that was the entire point of the United States to begin with. It was intended to operate as individual states (almost like small nations) where people could "customize" their society to fit with their views.

Then we realized that was stupid, probably around the Civil War, and stopped doing that...

We did? Please show us the constitutional amendment that made that change.

When he says "we", he means leftists/Democrats, and when he says, "realized it was stupid", he means "it wasn't giving us enough power and control".

 

[Asclepias]

The “logic” of the left gets more absurd - and thus more comical - with each passing day. They all keep trying this idiotic “but...but...but....it’s not ‘murder’ because it’s legal”.

Uh...we can make anything “legal”. Anything. We can make rape legal. But even in that scenario, you are raping a woman if you are forcing yourself on her. You may not get prosecuted for it. But you’re still raping her.

Likewise, we can make theft “legal”. But if you take something from me without my permission, you’re still stealing. You just won’t be prosecuted for it.

Arent you tired of embarrassing yourself yet? It cant be murder because murder is a legal term that defines a crime. Abortion is not a crime you nit wit.

If you want it to be murder then you need to make abortions illegal. If you cant do that then its never going to be murder.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is the Right Wing, that complain about the fiscal responsibility of, an ounce of prevention.

That's because that "fiscal responsibility of an ounce of prevention" is your responsibility. Not mine. If you can't afford a freaking condom, you're a broke loser and no woman should even be sleeping with you.

social costs are Our responsibility; don't make me get, "Mr. Hahn" involved.

A baby is not a “social cost”. Roads are a social cost. Law enforcement is a social cost. Courts are a social cost. A baby is a private citizen, individual cost. Period.

You have to understand, the Dim party is about the culture of death. They view human birth as a problem because they think that the world is over populated. As a result, they favor any effort to reduce human numbers, such as abortion, gay sex, birth control, euthanasia, etc. About the only death they oppose is killing murderers, presumably because you stop them from killing others.

Also, leftists are incapable of thinking of humans as individuals, as evidenced by their deranged embrace of identity politics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected.

But your point of view is based on your belief in the "personhood" of the fetus, correct? And, as I've pointed out, there's no consensus on that belief. Many, if not most, people don't believe that a fetus in a woman's womb qualifies as a legal person with rights.

If I may interject . . .

I don't know about Beagle, but MY pro-life point of view has nothing to do with made-up left-think concepts like "personhood" - whatever the **** that's supposed to be. Nor is it necessarily a "religious belief", as you said in your previous post, although my religious beliefs DO coincide with it.

It's actually a rational assessment of the available medical and scientific information, divorced from any glandular thinking about "But it SUCKS to have a baby when you didn't plan to, so there HAS to be a way that it's okay to pretend nothing happened!"

A fetus is a living, individual organism of the human species, distinct from all other living, individual organisms of the human species. Not one single word of that is indisputable on scientific grounds. There is nothing that a logical, rational person can say biologically about a born human being which could not equally be said about a fetus.

And I fail to see "But most people FEELZ otherwise, because they don't know jack shit about medical science!" as a persuasive argument for anything.

 

[Asclepias]

No, the life in that womb should be protected just like any other human being is protected.

But your point of view is based on your belief in the "personhood" of the fetus, correct? And, as I've pointed out, there's no consensus on that belief. Many, if not most, people don't believe that a fetus in a woman's womb qualifies as a legal person with rights.

If I may interject . . .

I don't know about Beagle, but MY pro-life point of view has nothing to do with made-up left-think concepts like "personhood" - whatever the **** that's supposed to be. Nor is it necessarily a "religious belief", as you said in your previous post, although my religious beliefs DO coincide with it.

It's actually a rational assessment of the available medical and scientific information, divorced from any glandular thinking about "But it SUCKS to have a baby when you didn't plan to, so there HAS to be a way that it's okay to pretend nothing happened!"

A fetus is a living, individual organism of the human species, distinct from all other living, individual organisms of the human species. Not one single word of that is indisputable on scientific grounds. There is nothing that a logical, rational person can say biologically about a born human being which could not equally be said about a fetus.

And I fail to see "But most people FEELZ otherwise, because they don't know jack shit about medical science!" as a persuasive argument for anything.

You left out the part that says "...and dependent on the mother to sustain its life". Since it needs the mother its rights do not at all supersede the rights of the host it needs to live.