Abortion: wrong or just sort of wrong?

That's the trouble with ignorance, it can play with all kinds of assumptions and pat itself on the back at the same time.
 
I posted a link to what SCOTUS considers a possible challenge. Why don't you go read it and satisfy that curiosity?
 
One does not need to be pregnant to understand abortion on demand is an abominable act. It's like saying you can't have an opinion unless you personally experience something. If that we're the case there would never exist any real controversy over anything, and life would cease to have meaning or order, and laws would be of no real value.
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
One does not need to be pregnant to understand abortion on demand is an abominable act. It's like saying you can't have an opinion unless you personally experience something. If that we're the case there would never exist any real controversy over anything, and life would cease to have meaning or order, and laws would be of no real value.
Click to expand...

If you haven't borne an unwanted child you are just a bullying noboty, obviously. Life has, obviously, no more meaning than we give it, and only fools think otherwise.
 
iolo said:
If you haven't borne an unwanted child you are just a bullying noboty, obviously. Life has, obviously, no more meaning than we give it, and only fools think otherwise.
Click to expand...

If your assertion were correct than life is merely an exercise in futile efforts, as one mans meaning is equal to the next.

Again, personal experience might be compelling with regards empathy, but has no actual standing with regrda ethics and law, nor can it be a societies guide to moral questions. Remember all kinds of evil has been lawful because of personal need , or because some felt a meaningful right to something.
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
I posted a link to what SCOTUS considers a possible challenge. Why don't you go read it and satisfy that curiosity?
Click to expand...

your link did not report what SCOTUS considered to be a possible challenge in any way. It reported what OTHERS felt would be the issues THEY would ask the court to consider. SCOTUS has not said diddly on the subject.

Maybe you should try reading it again yourself for clarity this time.
 
maineman said:
your link did not report what SCOTUS considered to be a possible challenge in any way. It reported what OTHERS felt would be the issues THEY would ask the court to consider. SCOTUS has not said diddly on the subject.

Maybe you should try reading it again yourself for clarity this time.
Click to expand...

Your question WAS what others might think. Perhaps you need only retread what you post?
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
If your assertion were correct than life is merely an exercise in futile efforts, as one mans meaning is equal to the next.

Again, personal experience might be compelling with regards empathy, but has no actual standing with regrda ethics and law, nor can it be a societies guide to moral questions. Remember all kinds of evil has been lawful because of personal need , or because some felt a meaningful right to something.
Click to expand...

Life under capitalism, as you know, is totally futile, living pointlessly under lies so that thieves can steal. Grow up!
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
Your question WAS what others might think. Perhaps you need only retread what you post?
Click to expand...

your answer was much more explicit. You didn't claim to link to a site where others discussed what their view of the perfect case was.... you stated, quite clearly, that you link contained WHAT SCOTUS CONSIDERS A POSSIBLE CHALLENGE. If you wrote the sentence inaccurately, perhaps simply saying that would be more elegant than doing otherwise.
 
christiefan915 said:
When you can prove that no con ever had an abortion or supported abortion, then you'll have a leg to stand on. Good thing abortion demographics don't include political affiliation, huh.
Click to expand...

really?.....if a con had an abortion, then killing babies is a good thing?.....when liberals stop telling young people they have a right to kill unborn children, when they stop telling people they are nothing but parasites, THEN you can get rid of the taint you carry with you whereever you go.....
 
Jarod said:
So do you think atheism should be outlawed?
Click to expand...

oh shucks, did I forget to answer that question the first three times you asked?.......get over yourself dude.....I have filed no lawsuits demanding a right of atheism......I have not taught young people that non atheist thoughts are mere parasites that can be removed from their minds because its their body.....I'm sorry if it makes you feel bad that someone might accuse you of the natural consequences of your actions, but hey....nobody made you be a fucking idiot......
 
Jarod said:
All liberals I know want to stop it, just not by force of law.
Click to expand...

yeah right.....liberals are falling all over themselves trying to reduce abortion.....the mere mention that a doctor ought to tell the mother before hand that its killing something is enough to get you clamoring about the infringement....and claiming we're just doing it because we want to punish people for having sex, for fuck sake.....
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
Again, not what I said. This twisting of what a person posts in order to win an argument is annoying.

You attempted in an intellectually juvenile manner to simplify the process of such a challenge. I stated that SCOTUS cannot just take up any challenge, but the momentum to get the right case before them has not diminished.

As support to my contentions.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...meets-to-consider-taking-up-challenge-to-roe/
Click to expand...

Look, you can snark and deflect until the cows come home. I'm used to that from cons. All I want to know is why no anti-choice group has been able to overturn Roe v. Wade whether through SCOTUS or Congress. It's a simple question. And yes, I did read your link and assume you know the petition was denied on 1/13/14.
 
evince said:
then don't do it.


how do you murder something that is part of your own body?

if its in my body and it will die if removed then its mine.

Just like my liver
Click to expand...

if something develops inside your body, but could not do so without something from the inside of another body, wouldn't that other party have a say as well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top