Public Funding for Abortion

Well at least you admit you're ok with killing humans, human life, babies if it means saving you money.

 

Yep. And you can try to force yours too. Let's see who wins

 

Killing em dead. I could care less if it saves a penny either

 

I think you expressed yours well and I don't see any winning in it.

 

Well abortion is legal in every street, town, county, city and state in the union.....sounds like winning to me. Lol

 

I don't find dead babies much of a winning trophy.

The fact remains morality is embodied in our laws.

 

Yep. And we will kill a non viable fetus any day at anytime. You lose

 

Then those houses would be the target of vandals and thieves.

Not every community can be "gated."

If the property is protected against vandals, thieves and arsonists, it will help retain its value.

You can pay an income tax in lieu of a property tax if you want. Talk it up with your local community members.

You don't understand that a Straw Man requires substituting a person's actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument

There are many people willing to bear the cost of raising a child. It's called "Adoption."

 

NO, there are NOT enough people to adopt children....there are so many NOT adopted out that some even ":age out " of the system having never been adopted by big mouth Anti-Choicers who think they're such "precious lives".


AND, most importantly, women are under no obligation to give 9 months of their lives to make you feel good........



BTW, aren't you the poster who thinks women should have legal medical procedures rationed? Ya, I think you are....you must have been embarrassed by that and don't want it mentioned

 

Well, no "babies" involved in abortion except to those who don't know a thing about abortion.


So you think "morality is embodied in our laws"....YUPPERS and our law says abortion is just fine and dandy So I guess most people find abortion morally acceptable....in fact most polls show that

 

You completely ignore the concepts for foreseeability, proximate cause and "duty of care".

I already proved you wrong.

That only proves those women to be mentally ill.

 

Perhaps she was selfish and egotistical.

 

What's that got to do with the FACT that consent to sex is not consent to stay pregnant ?

SHOW THE LAW that says if a woman agrees to sex she agrees to give birth...SHOW THE LAW....

You 've never proven anyone wrong.

There's the misogyny that righties claim doesn't exist.... women who have abortions are mentally ill....what crap....


AND:
NO, there are NOT enough people to adopt children....there are so many NOT adopted out that some even ":age out " of the system having never been adopted by big mouth Anti-Choicers who think they're such "precious lives".


AND, most importantly, women are under no obligation to give 9 months of their lives to make you feel good........

 

Why do you constantly prattle about "the law"?

Because you know full well that laws can and do change. For that matter the constitution can change, has changed, and will be changed again.

Right and wrong does not change though.

 

Oh, another poster who doesn't believe in law.........that's the problem with this country , too many people scoff at the law.


Gee, DUH, just because laws CAN change doesn't mean they HAVE changed...

...and YOUR idea of "right and wrong" doesn't rule .....too bad for you

 

And I ask you again, I'm pretty sure I've asked you this before and you avoided answering...

If (when) the law changes to grant "fetuses" an inmate right to life even at the expense of the mother for 9 months.

Will you simply say "it's the law" and leave it at that?

 

There aren't as many people seeking adoption as there are seeking an abortion. In fact, it's rather lopsided right now. If abortion were to suddenly become illegal then the foster care system would exploded in size. There's barely enough foster parents as it is so the placement of these new babies would ultimately be in group/orphanage settings. And since foster care is usually involuntary that means some form of abuse and/or neglect has already occurred. So imagine what it must be like for these children to then be placed in an group/orphanage home where the trauma continues. See the dilemma is that while abortion may be considered immoral so is allowing a child to be brought in an environment like this.

 

I have answered but you didn't like the answer (and I don't know what an "inmate" right to life is).

First it isn't just the "law" it would have to be the Constitution which would have to change ( be destroyed) to make women only part citizens with part rights.....do you really think that would happen? (Well, ya, under Trump it could so he could rule unmolested and unfettered and unchallenged..like a dictator.)



Now I will repeat this one more time for you and if you can't get it do NOT ask again.


IF the fetus is ever granted "personhood" with personhood comes rights and RESTRICTIONS...



...now, unless you plan to have the law take away all of women's rights turning them into nothing but slaves and breeding cattle,

women will retain the right to refuse to sustain another person's life with their body. YOU have that right but want to take it away from women...how nasty!


Abortion would still be legal...


IF by some failure of reason in this country and on the Supreme Court abortion is made illegal I would do everthing in my power to see that women who want abortions get them......as has been done in the past....happily nowadays with all the underground help abortions would still be safe and easy and hopefully FREQUENT

 

So. You are a hypocrite as your "respect" for the law goes only as far as it agrees with your political beliefs.

And I meant to say "innate" instead of "inmate". My bad.

To me, women have a "legal" right to an abortion. But the fetus (or as I call it 'the baby') has a natural right to life. natural rights override legal rights.

If you don't know the differences between "natural" and "legal" you can look it up with ease.

 

Ya, natural rights don't exist.

No one has a "natural right to life".


And your disrespect for existing laws makes you a hypocrite.

Believing that ALL citizens of the United States, even women, have rights is not what I term a "political" belief......EVERY DECENT person should want that.

 

You seriously think if Roe V. Wade was overturned and most abortions became illegal in say two thirds of the states in the U.S. that there would still be 600,000-800,000 abortions performed every year in the United States???

 

No, I said that women who want abortions will be able to get them. I never mentioned any numbers , that is your invention....

Anyway, numbers don't count, women's right to their own bodies counts.

 

What logic do you take exception to ? The difference between murder and rape is that in one case you have a action against another human and in the other you do not.

The main principle on which this nation was founded, and by which "our" law and the constitution is to be interpreted - emphasizes this distinction.

This has nothing to to with "my logic". It is what it is.

 

Assumed premise. You have not proven your claim that a "child/baby/human" exists at all stages of pregnancy. If you want to claim a single human cell (zygote) is a human then prove this claim true.

 

Do you mean by those children that born into impoverished and disfunctional environments ?