The group of people that I simply cant understand

Yes they are.

Yes they do.

Then what was the point of bringing it up?

No it’s not.

Cry me a river.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.691fd50ebf5c
"A pregnant Maryland teacher who was found in a shallow grave in Damascus — and whose longtime boyfriend was charged with her death — has shone new light on a grim statistic: Homicide is one of the top causes of death for pregnant women."

 

FoxHastings said: ↑


A. No "babies" are "murdered" in abortion.

B. Women do NOT need justification to get an abortion.

C. NO, I did NOT say all abortions are due to this reason.

D. They have other avenues and abortion is one of them, it's THEIR choice, NO one else's.

E.Sounds like you have never been in an abusive relationship and have no understanding of, nor compassion for, those who are.

I put in letters to designate which answer goes to which comment.

If "babies" are being "murdered" you should act responsibly and notify the authorities.....have you?

No, women do not need justification for an abortion, all they have to do is ask for one.

And they certainly don't have to justify it to YOU …

Because you erroneously claimed I said it...and I did NOT say all abortions are due to this reason...

Yes, it's their body , their choice.

Oh, trust me, I never expected understanding or compassion or logic or facts from any Anti-Choicer.

 

When I was twenty, I visited a good friend from school, that I had not seen in a year or so. I ran into her, by chance, as she was entering her apartment and she invited me in. She was very happy to see me, but it became apparent right away that all was not well for her. She seemed sad, depressed and had trouble following our conversation. I could tell something was terribly wrong, it hung there, in the very air of the apartment, like a thick cloud of doom...

On my way to use her bathroom, I passed a small hall table and on it I saw a pamphlet outlining self care a woman should do after her abortion. We were very, very close in school, and since I loved her, I had no qualms asking her about the pamphlet...

She began crying quietly, shoulders shaking, and I put my arms around her as she softly said, "My boyfriend is abusing me. He rapes me, he beats me... I think he's going to kill me if I don't get out of this relationship."

She moved shortly afterwards. I visited her again, several years later, in her new home. I met her adoring husband and their two children.
She was, once again, the picture of happiness that she had been in school. The curly haired beauty, with the sparkly eyes...

She deserved that. Sadly some would prefer she had sacrificed her life for a monster who likely would have killed my lovely friend.

(Screw those "Anti-Choice" people. They don't know a thing about the complexities.)​

 

And she's not alone, many women have to face this dilemma....I'm glad she made it out of that safely..

But Anti-Choicers see only black and white and their version of right and wrong.

They pretend to care so much for the fetus but have no problem having a kid born to an abusive father and possibly live a life of sheer hell...

They don't realize how tied to that "man" the woman would be if she birthed his kid...and don't care.

 

Who gets killed or not is usually up the legislative bodies that decide which offenses at which level deserve the death penalty. In some state those laws can be repealed or revised by voter action. Those state criminal statutes tell prosecuters what charges to levy and judges what sentencing guidelines to impose , and what instructions to provide to juries. There are no guarantees that someone who commits any crime, might not commit murder after release. Your argument not only leads to the killing of all murderers including revenge crimes , it leads to the killing of a host of other crimes. If we don't kill all criminals whatever the charge, we cannot guarantee that one of them will not get out and murder. That insistence on complete security for ANY and ALL is a road to out of control government to go akilling. You might want to consider revising your standard because a brawl and assault charges should lead to the death penalty for perfect security of any and all. We already know they have a violent propensity, We should take no risks..

Government works just fine without killing people. That list of 107 states makes a lie out of your notion that it does not, especially the ones with lower recidivism rates and homicide rates. .

I have no problem controlling and containing government punishment. We completely abolish the cutting of limbs, the use of rape and physical abuse, and torture as punishments. Would you prefer we leave some wiggle room there too for judges and jurors?

 

An astute observation!

 

No it isn't. It's a valid reason to not become pregnant in the first place.

 

I have never condoned any act that kills children. So, I'll just dismiss your lie about me.

 

I doubt a woman in those circumstances was trying to get pregnant. Especially is she is wanting to end it.

 

I don't either which is why I oppose abortion. Is that so hard to understand?

 

The convict is a fully developed person and there is a chance that he was wrongfully convicted. The fetus is not a fully developed person and is many cases doesn't even have many of the attributes that make us human people.

 

I will dismiss your false projection.

 

You have a right to oppose abortion. You don't have a right to tell another human what they must do if they aren't doing anything illegal or against another person's rights.

 

Judging by your arguments, you apparently consider the government prosecuting these crimes as potentially bloodthirsty as those who committed them. The end result of a widespread fear and distrust of government CAN result in anarchy or even a coup by power-hungry parties exploiting the situation. . . . Yet you trust the government who is not capable of justly judging them to safely PERMANENTLY contain these brutal offenders???

Considering the link below, does ANY net value that you might presume these individuals to have justify the inherent risks we CERTAINLY must take by keeping them alive???

https://www.ranker.com/list/paroled-murderers-who-killed-again/jacob-shelton

 

You ended this at #135.

 

Pregnancy is very easily avoided.

 

The argument is whether a conceived human being has rights. You dismiss them as property while others see their humanness,

 

NO one has said a human fetus isn't human.

It is as human as a human woman's body and heart and liver and stomach , they are all human and belong to the woman they are in.



No one has rights until birth.


IF a fetus had rights they come with the same restrictions we all have....we are restricted from using another's body to sustain our lives without their consent.

You want the fetus to have more rights than you or I or any BORN person....that's just wrong...

 

Uh, if you had an inkling of the history of the world you'd know that isn't true...

Sure, it's easy for abnormal people with no sex drive......difficult otherwise...

 

Great post, perfectly stated! And this should be the end of the argument, but sadly won't be.

 

Thank you and yes, it won't be the end because some people just do NOT get the fact that women are persons with rights...

they insist an embryo ( and everyone else) has more rights than born women and then insist they aren't misogynists!!

 

Judgmental people love to believe this. It makes it so much easier to find fault, and condemn others, but it is not true.
Just as some have incredible infertility problems, so the opposite also exists, as well as extenuating circumstances that make a pregnancy virtually unavoidable for some sexually active people.

 

The link is useless. It provides your government no greater right to kill or to torture or mutilate, because you make the story more horrendous. I don't care how many children and nuns were eaten alive by the convicted, or if they confessed, or how many tons of DNA they left behind. None of that provides a right to take a life. They are horrible dangerous people and I so stipulate as do those 107 countries that also will not change their stance because of your link either. Those countries all have some very bad people too and they manage to house them without a statistically relevant number their children and nuns being eaten alive because they do not kill. If Andorra and Bolivia, and Liechtenstein and Micronesia can put them in their cells, and keep their population safe, then so can the United States of America. We don't have to become bloodthirsty killers, if those countries don't. You want us to choose to. Amnesty International, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Catholic Church, and Human Rights Watch all have no problem with however many locks and protective policies and sentencing guidelines you want to impose on your bad people.

You are the one trying desperately to create widespread fear and distrust of govt's ability to constrain criminals in their custody to justify your bloodlust. Your paranoia is not an excuse to kill. Their past misdeeds does not provide an excuse to kill. Your raising the tolerated risk of someone getting out and killing to zero, is also not an excuse to kill. The entire civilized world and virtually the entire European continent did not turn wrong, naïve,dangerous or impractical, because of your link.

 

This isn't about vengeance or bloodlust. There are individuals in society who have programmed themselves to have no respect for the lives or feelings of others. Unfortunately, those who give in to their compulsions roam freely, mercilessly taking lives until incarcerated due to reasonable suspicion or proof of murderous acts.

To me, it is clearly a double standard to make a value assessment of the life of the killer without considering the value of the lives he has taken. . . . Criminals are well aware that it convicted they will relinquish certain rights, commensurate with the nature of the offense, and relatively painless execution does not seem like "cruel and unusual punishment", especially when considering the suffering of the innocent victims.

You and I will obviously NEVER come to an agreement on this, but I do not fault you for your opinion, since you are voicing it to acknowledge that ALL human lives are priceless entities that should not be subjected to human judgment. I consider an exception; you do not.