It may have been "touching" but that is a bad pro-life argument. Essentially, it's saying "what would happen if Person X were aborted," thus we should make abortion illegal because of the potential of a great person forming. What about birth control? There's potential for a baby there that you're killing -- that should be outlawed as well, under this logic. It's flawed because it jumps over the issue of whether or not the fetus is an autonomous individual with the right to life -- the only relevant issue in abortion. As individuals, we should be able to do what we want with our bodies, be that doing drugs or taking our own life away. However, I cannot proclaim self-ownership to pull my finger back while it is in front of the trigger of a gun pointing at your head. It is the issue of the unborn baby's rights, not the mother's. If the baby does not have rights, it is merely an object latched onto the mother and she may dispose of it. If the baby does have rights, it is murder for the mother to get an abortion. That's all it breaks down to.
One would think that a woman who was so severely burned in infancy should be covered in scars, yet her skin is even clearer than mine! I do wish to know the name of her plastic surgeon...
if you want to dispute her account I am sure there MUST be some proof beyond snide insinuations. I notice you didn't make mention of the two sites I quoted that state babies survive late term abortions on a regular basis.
Late term abortions are extremely rare, so 'babies' are not 'saved' from them on a regular basis at all.
When pro-lifers say this: "Abortion just allows them to avoid the consequences of foolish decisions or reckless behavior. It takes away any need for responsibility or foresight on the part of the woman," they are the ones talking about "punishment with a baby."
Pretty accurate... http://www.english.uwosh.edu/roth/VictorianEngland.htm Among the working classes in London, many costermongers (street vendors) lived with their girlfriends starting in their early teens. Elsewhere in the working class, premarital sex was generally winked at, as long as the couple got married.In 1800, about a third of working-class brides were pregnant on their wedding day. For middle- and upper-class men, premarital sex would have been with servants and prostitutes, since "nice girls" didn't go beyond the small kiss or squeeze of the hand. There were about 80,000 "gay" women (prostitutes) and "fancy men" (pimps) in London in the mid-nineteenth century. They congregated around Covent Garden and in the theater district. They tucked part of their skirts up to indicate their business.
Humankind can survive without men, although everyone will be female. Humankind cannot survive without women. I doubt many feminists are worried about keeping their men. Most of us feminists wouldn't WANT a man that is so fragile he has to be told how "essential" he is.
There have been some reports of survivors of saline abortions. Saline abortions have not been done for YEARS. So I stand by my statement that there will be NO survivors of abortion.
see? according to the prodeathers we should aspire to be like the dregs of society...since they don't feel that they have what it takes to be anything better they want to drag everyone to the gutter with them. I prefer to look at the MILLIONS of women and girls that did NOT wallow in the gutter...I think that all people have it in themselves to be better and it is cruel to tell them differently. it is in reality a completely incompatible view of life... Granny thinks that since one or two people in a group fail; the entire group should be lowered to the lowest denomination... I feel that the majority can lift the bottom one or two UP.. Granny celebrates failure I celebrate success.. and never the twain shall meet.
LOL!! I know! you cry about how brutish men are but then lust after the macho men you denigrate! what fools the feminsts are...they symbolically castrate men then whine about how they aren't manly! and you go ahead and try to live without men...not doing so well if you ask me considering how many of you are running to Big Brother to take care of you after throwing your little boys out. (or having your men leave after he gets bored)
you continue to spread your lies in spite of all evidence against it... proof you KNOW you are lying and are spreading pure propaganda. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08081209
It certainly came from his body and he does have the right to keep it or give it away. As for your extrapolation... no that's not reasonable. If it were true, you could claim ownership of a park by shedding a tear on a rose. I encourage you to educate yourself more about the birth process before continuing this argument. The technology you propose does not exist. If and when it does, it could eliminate many if not all the reasons women seek abortions. If we get to that point, yes someone who donates sperm and someone who donates an egg may have equal rights to a child, or clone, or whatever may be made in your mechanical uterus. That hypothetical situation does not exist and may never. It has no relevance to the discussion of making a child in a woman's body and what her rights are in controlling her own body. It takes a woman, or at least nine months of her life. It's an arduous, intimiate and eventually violent and painful process. It takes sperm, often contributed by a man in about 45 distracted seconds. No one questions that a man may choose to end the process before his 45 second contribution is done, it astounds me that some still question that a woman should have any option to control the process.
That is some funny arrogance there.mankind as all female would have been eaten by wildlife, destroyed by the elements, starved to death, or would have completely killed each other off by now.
Because women can't plant gardens, deal with wildlife, or build homes... and women have started so many wars?
It's not "failure" nor is it the "lowest denomination" to have sex outside of marriage. Neither is it "success" or "better" to refrain from sex.
Really, which ones, the ones mentioned next? How any of those rules infringe on your self sovereignty?
WTF are you babbling about? Did you even understand any of what I wrote? Of course not, why else would you post this drivel as a response.
It looks like you too have difficulty with analogies. Have someone explain them to you, it may open a new perspective...
Do you have children or grandchildren? Do you teach them to succumb to their emotions or, do you teach them how to handle these emotions?
A tear on a rose does not create new life. non-sequitor, nice attempt at prose though, I give you a C+ I never said it did. I said it is possible and if it were a priority I'm sure it could be made availabe. You believe women seek abortion because they don't want to carry a fetus to term? I would think they get an abortion because they don't want a child. You make no sense. Yes, birth is not an easy process. However it involves human life not womens rights. If your argument is valid why can't they just kill their children when they grow tired of them?
how very sad for you that you cant' find anyone to meet your level of intelligence...I cant' TELL you how very very devastated I am that you don't approve of my responses to your drivel.. a full third of your posts consists entirely of put downs of other people's posts...you have kinda wore THAT schtick out. it's like "Oh look, Prometeus posted again, no need to read it!" cause we ALL know what you contribute...insults and fake superiority.
Oh, so you did not understand what I wrote. Its not a problem I assure you, but for the sake of simplicity you could just have said that. would you like me to explain any of it, because if you will manage to grasp at least the important parts you will learn some interesting facts which you unfortunately have termed drivel. No doubt does to lacking, but hey you know how to worm a cow, that is something I know nothing about. Then again, I do not debate those those issues... By the way, you need not read my posts at all, clearly you are unable to understand them or address the points in them.
Thats the point. We do understand what you write, IJ just called you on your BS and hateful rhetoric is all.
