Who are these people who want to tell women what to do in their private lives?

[owebo]

The arbitrary decision to decide a beginning point for life is not open minded. Interfering in the most intimate area of a woman's life is intolerable.

What about the male babies?

 

[owebo]

The arbitrary decision to decide a beginning point for life is not open minded. Interfering in the most intimate area of a woman's life is intolerable.

Therein lies the rub. It's not an "arbitrary decision". It is a hard held belief for some that a human being's life begins at conception. That being said, those that believe that will feel that the human being that is conceived in a woman's body is a separate human life and has, perhaps not legal, but a inherently moral right to live since it has no choice, nor does the other, equal parent, who, no fault of choice of their own, can not carry the child.

Regardless of what you say, it's a debatable topic. It has been and always will be.....

The only place killing is debatable is a court of law.....

 

[owebo]

Some find chopping off a babies arms, legs, and head barbaric.

I do too, however this is not abortion.

Sometimes it is....but the procedure is frowned upon by democrats as it lowers the profit margins for the sale of the baby parts.....

 

[owebo]

Belief is entirely subjective. The reality remains that a woman's reproductive decisions ultimately are hers, and any repercussions from her decisions are hers. There is no other authority that has equal justification to this. Imposing one is authoritarian.

Imposing decisions on another human is fascist....I agree......

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I am I am...................

Personally I believe both sides have a point, though liberals often lie to support theirs.

Those dang liberals and their Planned parenthood videos eh ...LOL...conservatives often assassinate Medical personnel and bomb clinics to support theirs...

 

[owebo]

I am I am...................

Personally I believe both sides have a point, though liberals often lie to support theirs.

Those dang liberals and their Planned parenthood videos eh ...LOL...conservatives often assassinate Medical personnel and bomb clinics to support theirs...
View attachment 111142

We celebrate the end of Tillers reign of fascist baby murdering terror........

 

[ding]

The arbitrary decision to decide a beginning point for life is not open minded. Interfering in the most intimate area of a woman's life is intolerable.

There is nothing arbitrary about defining the start of a genetically distinct new human life. DNA and the scientific definition of life tell us that a genetically distinct human life comes into existence at conception. It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence. There is nothing arbitrary about that. What is arbitrary is your denial pf scientific facts.

 

[ding]

I am I am...................

Personally I believe both sides have a point, though liberals often lie to support theirs.

Those dang liberals and their Planned parenthood videos eh ...LOL...conservatives often assassinate Medical personnel and bomb clinics to support theirs...
View attachment 111142

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood believed that abortion was an abomination and would not allow it at her clinic. Margaret Sanger knew abortion was wrong. Why don't you?

 

[ding]

Belief is entirely subjective. The reality remains that a woman's reproductive decisions ultimately are hers, and any repercussions from her decisions are hers. There is no other authority that has equal justification to this. Imposing one is authoritarian.

Right up until the point she makes a decision for a genetically distinct human being. Then it is no longer her body she is deciding for... it is a new and distinct and separate human life. Why don't you just agree that abortion is designed to end a human life and it is wrong to do so but you still support it. At least then you will be honest about it. Stop rationalizing that abortion is noble and right. It isn't. You people are fucked up with your bullshit rationalizations that wrong is right. That's bullshit. Just be honest. I won't call you a monster.

 

[ding]

Some find chopping off a babies arms, legs, and head barbaric.

The abortion on demand and pro-Planned Parenthood Cheerleaders don't though, they have no problem with any of that.

When they start selling chopped off, harvested baby parts even many abortion proponents were disgusted.

That never happened, but enjoy your "fake news"

Sure it does. Haven't you ever heard of D&E by dismemberment? You don't think they sell those parts too?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The arbitrary decision to decide a beginning point for life is not open minded. Interfering in the most intimate area of a woman's life is intolerable.

There is nothing arbitrary about defining the start of a genetically distinct new human life. DNA and the scientific definition of life tell us that a genetically distinct human life comes into existence at conception. It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence. There is nothing arbitrary about that. What is arbitrary is your denial pf scientific facts.

You're arguing with someone who probably thinks that Bruce Jenner is a woman. Modern LIbErals have a view of “science” that is very far removed from what sane people understand science to be.

 

[there4eyeM]

Of course, the goal post can be moved as much as one wants. Conception isn't the beginning of life now, but it is the beginning of something different; like day is different from night, so time begins with the dawn.
Or, perhaps the part of a woman that is attached to her is no longer attached to her due to the introduction of foreign protein from a male, thus giving the male dominance over her.
Humans are very imaginative, and endless excuses for any end one wishes are possible. Pick a desire and choose or create the arguments to justify it.
No one has, however, shown there is any other case where we physically reach inside a person to determine to what that person must conform for the state. That is a very 'liberal' application of power. For those who feel that freedom is essential to the human spirit, imposing one's will upon a woman, present and active in the world, is unthinkable. A real person facing you has predominant importance over a potential that may be. A woman's reproductive decisions are hers. For those who believe in 'God', let 'God' take care of any other judgments.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear JakeStarkey
More emphasis should be put on punishments for the rapists, and make it CLEARLY illegal to force or coerce sex where it would result in an unwanted pregnancy or abortion.

Once the tables are turned, and the responsibility for rape is put on the MEN, not the women as victims and easy targets, we will see this situation change.

Thanks for posting JakeStarkey
Even though the remarks make me think sarcastically:
"THIS coming from the prochoice left who also supported the feds invading privacy of ALL CITIZENS by telling us what to do with our paychecks" -- ie forcing citizens to buy private insurance as the ONLY MEANS for paying and providing for health care to avoid PUNISHMENT.

If anything started back down the road to making "free choice" a CRIME it was those mandates that set up a dangerous precedent for federal govt to overreach.

Now the Arkansas legislature "passes law allowing rapists to sue victims who want an abortion."

Arkansas just passed a law that will let rapists sue victims who want an abortion

This law (1) gives the husband of his pregnant wife the legal right "to stop her from having an abortion, even in cases of spousal rape . . .". That will be cheered on by Iranian parliament.

And (2) husbands can sue for damages the doctors who carry out such abortions.

Insanity reigns in Arkansas.

 

[initforme]

All the rabid debate about this topic is why more and more young married couples are choosing not to have children. They are brave and courageous. Perhaps if a national effort to encourage couples not to have kids will result in a win for the nation and less unwanted, unneeded, and unnecessary pregnancies.

 

[owebo]

All the rabid debate about this topic is why more and more young married couples are choosing not to have children. They are brave and courageous. Perhaps if a national effort to encourage couples not to have kids will result in a win for the nation and less unwanted, unneeded, and unnecessary pregnancies.

Where will you get profits from then?

 

[owebo]

Of course, the goal post can be moved as much as one wants. Conception isn't the beginning of life now, but it is the beginning of something different; like day is different from night, so time begins with the dawn.
Or, perhaps the part of a woman that is attached to her is no longer attached to her due to the introduction of foreign protein from a male, thus giving the male dominance over her.
Humans are very imaginative, and endless excuses for any end one wishes are possible. Pick a desire and choose or create the arguments to justify it.
No one has, however, shown there is any other case where we physically reach inside a person to determine to what that person must conform for the state. That is a very 'liberal' application of power. For those who feel that freedom is essential to the human spirit, imposing one's will upon a woman, present and active in the world, is unthinkable. A real person facing you has predominant importance over a potential that may be. A woman's reproductive decisions are hers. For those who believe in 'God', let 'God' take care of any other judgments.

Why do you feel it's ok to impose your will on other humans?

 

[initforme]

There are plenty of people to create profits. Less unwanted kids means less of a drain on the taxpayers. A lot less kids means less unemployment. A lot less kids could mean a stronger nation in many respects. A lot less pregnancies means less abortions as well.

 

[owebo]

There are plenty of people to create profits. Less unwanted kids means less of a drain on the taxpayers. A lot less kids means less unemployment. A lot less kids could mean a stronger nation in many respects. A lot less pregnancies means less abortions as well.

Over 60 million humans so far......

 

[initforme]

So encouraging young married couples to focus solely on themselves and their careers, save and stockpile money, don't buy a house, etc....creates less taxpayer drain, less abortion, less diapers lol, less need for food, less cars, less congestion. Is there a down side?

 

[initforme]

Less bankruptcies, less business competition, less minimum wage job creation which is a huge improvement.....hard to find a bad side.