Public Funding for Abortion

Now you're simply trolling. Typical.

 

Widespread use, acceptance, of elective abortion diminishes the general respect for life. And thus contributes to crime against people.

That is "common knowledge" foxhastings. So it requires no proof.

 

No, it doesn't.....abortion has been around for hundreds, if not thousands , of years so lack of respect for the life of the fetus has been around for a while..

YOU are blaming all crimes on abortion!!!??? How ridiculous...I've heard some fantastic NON-arguments from Anti-Choicers but that IS the most asinine..

You think a bank robber or a murderer thinks, "Gee, abortion is legal so I'll kill someone or rob a bank" .........



...and guess what ? MURDER happened before the first recorded abortion......ever hear of Cain and Abel? Did they look into the future and see abortions so one killed the other !!! Hilarious that you think that way !!!

 

Once again. You lie about what has been said.

Of course any person of you ilk that makes such excuses for murder would have no hesitation about lying either.

1) Abortion has been around for hundreds of years. But I guarantee that until Roe V. Wade it wasn't over one million every year.

2) I blamed the rise in crime against people (murder, child molestiong, assault, spousal abuse, rape) on a growing depravity and disregard for human life which is tied to widespread acceptance (and official sanctioning) of abortion.

Of course I would not expect someone like you who hates human life to be truthful.

I strongly suspect you have some kind of strong personal stake the abortion rights debate. Either you or a family member have had one or paid for one.

Either one, you are simply trying to justify you or a family members own depravity.

So everyone else in this thread should disregard what he (or she) is claiming about abortion

 

This is a common misunderstanding. The difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others is that - in a free society - forcing one's belief on others requires justification.

There is a difference between .. Murder/Rape and smoking a joint.

I have written at length previously on this subject so if you are interested I can trot out the whole diatribe but, in a nutshell "rights end where the nose of another begins". This is the heart of the distinction and one of the main principles on which the nation was founded.

In the DOI - document which sets out the legitimate authority of Gov't and how law and the constitution is supposed to be interpreted- individual rights and freedoms are put "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

This does not mean one is free to do what ever they want (as is implied in your comments). These freedoms end where the nose of another begins. This is also where the legitimate authority of Gov't ends and begins.

With respect to individual liberty:

These limitations to Gov't power come not out of some set religious or secular moral values in the way you are inferring.
It is the morals that come out of the principles on which our system was founded as per the social contract and the Golden Rule.

I can continue of you like.

 

As I already stated, I dont think abortion has a destabilizing effect on society and thus should not be restricted. But I also believe its wrong to force people to support things they morally object to. Drone strikes on civilians, the war on marijuana, regime change operations on foreign sovereign soil, blood for oil, abortion.. these are all (imo) morally atrocious activities that I protest being forced to participate in by funding with my tax dollars. Currently (at least in theory), abortion is *not* something Im forced to participate in, and as such is none of my business. Im trying to keep it that way. Make me pay for it, and I will become politically involved in stopping it.

 

Boy, that's some hysterical rant...filled with the usual lies, I never made excuses for murder.

YOU said I hate human life, Lie #2....

Lie #3: You ""you are simply trying to justify you or a family members own depravity"""

I do not have to justify anything especially not abortion....and neither my family nor I am depraved .

You: ""2) I blamed the rise in crime against people (murder, child molestiong, assault, spousal abuse, rape) on a growing depravity and disregard for human life which is tied to widespread acceptance (and official sanctioning) of abortion"""""""


No, it isn't ....""" depravity and disregard for human life"" have been around since humans have been around...trying to blame that on abortion is beyond facts or logic.....and is ridiculous.


I noticed your warped need to control others extends to telling other posters what to think....

 

I did not make any false claims. As far as the impacts on women you are referring to (right, wrong speculative or otherwise) - this has no bearing on Law. In a free country people have the right to take personal risk including risk of harm.

 

Just as suspected. You have a personal stake in justifying abortion.

Yes, anyone that tries to provide justification for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of human lives each year as you do definitely hates human life.

How can you not?

You've accused me of hating women for simply wanting them to be required to carry a pregnancy to term when avoiding an unintended pregnancy is ridiculously easy.

Yet you don't think you hate human life when you justify the destruction of hundreds of thousands of example of it every year?

And don't get cute with words and legalisms and what you claim are the "rights" of women. You know full well that an abortion destroys human life.

 

You seem confused.

I hate to break this to you, but it is not your writings that first put forth the notion that " My right to swing my left arm ends at your nose". In fact, that notion is so common that it can properly be titled cliché.

I have no idea whatsoever where you are getting the notion that my comments somehow imply that anyone is free to do whatever they want, because I said nor implied any such thing. I merely very briefly touched on the notion that laws are essentially based in morality. This isn't something that I simply made up. It has been the subject of scholarly debate for many centuries.

In regards to abortion specifically, as I already said, I happen to be pro choice. With that being said, a pro lifer could very easily take the above cliché to mean that it is backing up their argument. A womans right to control her body ends when doing so terminates a human life. The essence of that argument is when does human life begin. A pro lifer sincerely believes it begins at conception, and a pro choicer believes it begins at birth. It doesn't matter if you bring in tired and worn out clichés, or debate about where the legitimate role of government authority begins. At its core, regardless of any available legalese, the abortion debate is strictly about the question of when does life begin. For that matter, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the choice of the mother. There is no crime where the choice of the potential assailant is used to determine whether or not it is a crime. We don't allow rape because a man chose to do that with his body. It is against the law because his choice is impacting another. We allow abortion because it is sufficiently debatable when life begins. If more people sincerely believed it begins at conception, it would be against the law, because the womans choice would then be determined to be ending a human life. The entire choice argument is nonsense. The ONLY legitimate argument is when does life begin.

 

NOPE. It's when a fetus is deemed a "person" and that is at birth.

The woman's life started before the fetus....her life comes first.

IF the fetus/zygote/embryo is deemed a person from conception then with it's rights comes the same restrictions we all have. It cannot use another person's body to sustain it's life. You and I can't, why could a fetus?

Since it is causing harm to the woman it's in she would then have the same right you and I have to defend ourselves....and there is only one way a pregnant woman can do that.


YOU wish to give the fetus/zygote/embryo MORE rights than anyone else.



You: """notion that laws are essentially based in morality. This isn't something that I simply made up. It has been the subject of scholarly debate for many centuries.""

See the word "debate" ?

And it doesn't really matter since everyone's morals are different and no one person's morals , or even a whole group of people's morals , should be legislated to take away other's rights.

 

If you had actually read my post, you would have clearly seen that I stated that my belief is that life begins at birth. Why would you bother to reply to a post, especially one not directed at you, without reading it first ?

 

You stated, """" The ONLY legitimate argument is when does life begin.""....and I replied, NO, that isn't the only legitimate argument......and I went on to say why....if you didn't understand that's on you...

 

I said that

I stated that I am pro choice and that pro choice believes that life begins at birth. You responded that I "wish to give the fetus/zygote/embryo MORE rights than anyone else."

The only legitimate argument IS when does life begin, and for me, I say that life begins at birth or more specifically when the fetus is viable outside of the womb. I really wish that you would actually read and understand prior to yet ANOTHER foaming at the mouth response from you.

 

Oh, you think the fetus is dead until born? No, it is alive, it is life....unless by "life" you mean a person with rights...is that it?

...and no, I don't think life starts at birth or conception, it started thousands of years ago.

...and foaming at the mouth is all a perception, I've had too many abortion discussions without having to foam at the mouth....presuming silly things doesn't add to your credibility.

 

P

Presuming silly things indeed does NOT add to anyones credibility. On that we can agree.

Observing that YOU didn't actually read my post AND that you have a penchant for foaming at the mouth replies however, is not silly, because it is an accurate observation.

 

Yeah and a heck of a lot more than that, Right Lesh?

 

I'm fine with that. Good idea

 

No, it isn't. Opportunity Costs offer a benefit.

The right to own property doesn't preclude the possibility that the property may be taxed.

I was suggesting bake sales for those who want abortions. They can set up a Go-Fund-Me page or something.

 

Not when one voluntarily places themselves in harm's way.

American 'abortion addict' reveals she terminated 15 pregnancies in 17 years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...5-terminations-17-years-publishes-memoir.html

 

YES, even if a boxer consents to a fight, he didn't consent to being killed....AND he can withdraw consent at anytime...exactly like anyone else.....

It is what ONE person did, she does not represent all women as you claim......there are no sprees...a spree doesn't last 17 years....and has no relevance to the topic.

 

So you can see through the computer and see that I'm foaming at the mouth.....what a fun distraction for you to keep the attention away from your ridiculous posts

 

How is abortion self defense?

 

The fetus harms the woman. Since pregnant women don't lose the same rights you and I have to defend ourselves they, too, can defend themselves from harm.

Now read carefully, self defense will be used if fetuses are ever deemed "persons" with rights.....right now they aren' t so no "self defense" is needed.

 

First you make a comment showing very little understanding of the relationship to morals and law. When I explain the distinction you call it "cliche" like you knew this. Then you build a straw man by inferring I said that morals do not exist at all in law- when I did not - essentially circling the wagons and showing that you do not understand "how" morals fit into the equation .. the thing that was explained in my post that you called "cliche".

You are correct that the argument centers around whether or not a human exists through the various stages of pregnancy.
Since "experts disagree" about the status of the zygote and other stages - legitimacy of authority comes into play. If there is no human then the Gov't has no legitimate authority to punish a woman for wanting to have an abortion.

If the Gov't has no role in telling a woman what she must do with a pregnancy - it is then the woman's choice.