Abortion

007 said:
Ok so boxers opinion that an infant can be killed legally at anytime from the point it is born to the point it arrives home is one you agree with?
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got that from. Ms. Boxer certainly never said that.

Do you believe Also that families own their children?
That was boxers clear statement.
Click to expand...

Own. Belong. As in "they are the children of".

Badgered?
She was simply asked for a clear answer and couldn't give one.
Much as you cannot.
Click to expand...

She gave an answer and he didn't accept it. In the end she had to use a story, an example, an explanation as one would give a child. That doesn't mean every word uttered is germane to the question.

For example, if we see a child mistreating a dog, pulling it's tail, we may ask the child if it would like to be treated that way. Only a fool would counter that a child doesn't have a tail. The tail is part of the story used as an example of mistreatment. It's unfortunate you're not able to understand that.
 
evince said:
keep your fingers OUT of the insides of my body.


Period.


that is NOT negociable
Click to expand...

For the record, I don't want to put my fingers inside your body.

But, to be clear if you kept mens body parts out of your body, you wouldn't need to kill a baby you say you don't want. It is really common sense
 
apple0154 said:
I don't know where you got that from. Ms. Boxer certainly never said that.



Own. Belong. As in "they are the children of".



She gave an answer and he didn't accept it. In the end she had to use a story, an example, an explanation as one would give a child. That doesn't mean every word uttered is germane to the question.

For example, if we see a child mistreating a dog, pulling it's tail, we may ask the child if it would like to be treated that way. Only a fool would counter that a child doesn't have a tail. The tail is part of the story used as an example of mistreatment. It's unfortunate you're not able to understand that.
Click to expand...
She refused to answer the question repeatedly.
When she did eventually answer the question which was;-"when does life begin, when does a child enjoy the rights laid fort in the constitution"?

Her answer;-
" when it is born, when it gets home then it belongs to its family"!!

So it is not born until it gets home.

Now, confusion again!
Who does it belong to before it gets home?

Added to the liberal attack, persecution and (failed) prosecution of Douglas Kennedy!

How could he endanger Beau if beau wasn't a life?
He was charged with endangering a child was he not?
It was an unborn, you can't endanger that which is not a life!!
 
evince said:
How about we take another aproach to protecting what you see as full rights owning person who ends up in an unwilling uterous.


You snip EVERY males testicular sperm delivery tube and make sure no little guys get into unwilling uterous'.


That is how you control your part of the bargain.
Click to expand...

then you get fixed, that is how you control your's
 
evince said:
You will NEVER be able to control us in this way again.

Get it


Its not going to happen
Click to expand...

Who is trying to control anything but your ability to kill a baby, are you that callous, if you willingly take part in sexual activity then be willing to deal with the consequences of said action, period at the same time the male counterpart should do the same.
 
evince said:
when you can adopt a fetus and invent a artifiscial womb you can adopt unwanted fetuses.

Until then the fully grown woman human gets the right to deside when she harbors a fetus inside her very own flesh.


Until then fuck off
Click to expand...

Then you should not go out and whore around, and then decide oh crap I am not ready kill it, kill it, God said he knows before he forms you in the womb.
 
Anti-Party said:
Like everything else I have my own unique perspective on this.

Is abortion ok? No. Letting science decide at what stage a baby becomes a baby is only scientist opinion. I believe in a womans right to choose but I don't agree with a womans right to choose to end a separate life.

The fact is both parties can win here if they put their heads together. Everyone should have easy access to birth control, the morning after pill and condoms. Yes Righty's, this means you have to cover it in taxes. And yes it will be a compromise religion will have to debate. Contraceptives are not baby killers, they are preventers. Saying contraceptives kill babies is like saying every time a woman rags she is killing a baby. We need to take a better look at adoptive services because bad people are able to get kids when possible good parents are getting denied. Then, sorry Lefties, we need to make abortion illegal. It shouldn't matter because abortion would be obsolete at this point.

The fact is we need the ability to control birth. The Right Wing always has it's head in the clouds thinking people need to be accountable for their own decisions. But what happens when that kid grows up with an unfit parent who didn't want the child and neglected it. It's raised uneducated. It ends up on welfare because it has no experiences. It eventually shoots someone (all parties are saying gun violence is an educational issue mostly). It's the reason "Freakonomics" discussed the large drop in violence around 18 years after abortion was deemed legal
Click to expand...

Nope you are the ones engaging in risky business you pay for it, I will just have to disagree to pay for others sexual behavior
 
apple0154 said:
It's because our culture, our entire way of life in the West, is based on the idea each human being is an individual and has exclusive rights to their body.

As Evince explained in msg #2, "You don't have the right to tell that completely formed human being what YOU will allow to be done to the INSIDES of her very own flesh."

It can't be made any more clear than that. As individuals we decide on what to do with our bodies. Surely that's the most basic of freedoms. If I don't have the right to go up to a woman and grab her ass why would another "human being" have the right to live inside her body?
Click to expand...

How about she not go out and whore around, that is in her control no.
 
apple0154 said:
It doesn't make them two individuals meaning a unique set of DNA does not a human being prove.
Click to expand...

of course not.....but as one with two sets of DNA, she is certainly a distinct individual.....and by definition, she is thus a human being....thus, my point remains proven......thank you...
 
007 said:
She refused to answer the question repeatedly.
When she did eventually answer the question which was;-"when does life begin, when does a child enjoy the rights laid fort in the constitution"?

Her answer;-
" when it is born, when it gets home then it belongs to its family"!!

So it is not born until it gets home.

Now, confusion again!
Who does it belong to before it gets home?

Added to the liberal attack, persecution and (failed) prosecution of Douglas Kennedy!

How could he endanger Beau if beau wasn't a life?
He was charged with endangering a child was he not?
It was an unborn, you can't endanger that which is not a life!!
Click to expand...

you see, the problem is, when you get caught saying stupid shit people see it, point and say "Look, stupid shit".....
 
apple0154 said:
No, because a poor person is more liable to do that and injure themselves. However, they are permitted to donate one to a family member.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that a person really doesn't have a right to control their body then which is the entire premise of your argument. They don't need two kidneys. Who are you to tell them they can't sell one?

I don't think you have made a very compelling argument. You have just undermined your entire "people have a right to control their body argument".

You obviously think that they do not and you are very comfortable telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies
 
patriot66 said:
yes she had the right not to engage in actions that could cause said pregnancy, and we are not talking about rape, or incest, so I will save you that argument
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but that's a crucial part of the argument. Those who believe a fetus is a human being yet maintain an abortion is OK in cases of rape/incest approve of murder depending on who the parents are or whether Mommy said "yes" or "no". Or if Mommy was sleeping at the time. Or if Mommy was drunk.

"Your mother was drunk at the time so it's OK to kill you." That is the anti-abortionist logic. Is it any wonder abortion has remained legal for 40 years?

Talk about cognitive dissonance; "the theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements."

Then some anti-abortionists say abortion is OK if the pregnancy may cause problems for the mother. The fact is it's extremely rare the fetus is the problem. The problem almost always rests with the faulty body of the woman but, hey, it's logical to murder a healthy human being so that a faulty one may live.

Cognitive dissonance or outright insanity?
 
007 said:
She refused to answer the question repeatedly.
When she did eventually answer the question which was;-"when does life begin, when does a child enjoy the rights laid fort in the constitution"?

Her answer;-
" when it is born, when it gets home then it belongs to its family"!!

So it is not born until it gets home.

Now, confusion again!
Who does it belong to before it gets home?

Added to the liberal attack, persecution and (failed) prosecution of Douglas Kennedy!

How could he endanger Beau if beau wasn't a life?
He was charged with endangering a child was he not?
It was an unborn, you can't endanger that which is not a life!!
Click to expand...

I answered that before regarding the California case where the man murdered the pregnant woman. They included the fetus in the charges knowing the jury would convict on two murders due to the horrendous crime committed. It set a precedent. That's how sneaky prosecutors do things. That's why we must be ever vigilant as they try to steal people's rights.
 
apple0154 said:
Ahhh, but that's a crucial part of the argument. Those who believe a fetus is a human being yet maintain an abortion is OK in cases of rape/incest approve of murder depending on who the parents are or whether Mommy said "yes" or "no". Or if Mommy was sleeping at the time. Or if Mommy was drunk.

"Your mother was drunk at the time so it's OK to kill you." That is the anti-abortionist logic. Is it any wonder abortion has remained legal for 40 years?

Talk about cognitive dissonance; "the theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements."

Then some anti-abortionists say abortion is OK if the pregnancy may cause problems for the mother. The fact is it's extremely rare the fetus is the problem. The problem almost always rests with the faulty body of the woman but, hey, it's logical to murder a healthy human being so that a faulty one may live.

Cognitive dissonance or outright insanity?
Click to expand...

Actually I don't support abortion in any instance. Murder is murder.

But then you dot really think people have control over their bodies do you? You are fine with the gobblement telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies as long as YOU approve

You see abortion as a way of social engineering
 
Hey conservative, heres a true conservative idea:

High School counselors and nurses can hand out Plan-B and week-after birth control pills. Welfare rolls would decline dramatically.

See, that's true conservatism, a compassionate and economically sensible solution to a problem. Why economically sensible? Because one Plan-B pill costs nothing compared to 18 years of food stamps, medicaid, public eductions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top