How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate

Maybe this will make everybody happy.

Abortion compromise: Republican feminists fight for right to arm vaginas

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2018/1...can-feminists-fight-for-right-to-arm-vaginas/

 

The Onion has competition i see

 

The taking of a life.

 

And part of the DNA is not shared between the child and the father?

 

.

 

So....46 pages of yet another Thread on abortion. Now's it going? Finally resolved? It has been in my State. Legalised.

 

Why is infringing on another's rights wrong?

But it does doesn't it?

What do you think Roe v Wade was?

Garbled? I said that they can "live their lives in whatever way they want." How is that garbled? They shouldn't be forced to do anything! Is that clear enough for you?

Rightly or wrongly?

Which was wrong right?

Do you think that the only reason that women have abortions is because they believe that the fetus is causing them physical harm?

 

Actually, I'm stunned that the left aren't campaigning for it in the other states. They don't seem to care one little bit about abortion.

 

What section of the Constitution are you referring to that would make it unconstitutional?

Would this be taking away their right to their own body?

The government doesn't care about people that you don't like.

Now THAT would be unconstitutional!

Wherever it takes us!

 

Already made legal in Victoria

 

From Russia...

 

No, it isn't a "consequence",..it affects them in NO way.

 

Doesn't matter, as long as it's IN the woman , it's hers.

 

Silly question.

No, it doesn't.

RvW protected rights that women are born with...because some people don't think women should have the right to their own body like everyone else has.



Garbled? I said that they can "live their lives in whatever way they want." How is that garbled? They shouldn't be forced to do anything! Is that clear enough for you?

Yes, rightly or wrongly humans have always decided that if someone is INCONVENIENT they can be killed.

Wrong or right it's still a fact.

No, and I never said so.

 

Uh, it's legal .

 

There's not, but you started it by telling me something that you had no reason to believe that I didn't already know!

How is the health system not government?

Well the tax payer and government shouldn't have to subsidise a lifestyle choice, but this isn't the case in the US is it?

Of course. I wasn't suggesting that this isn't the case.

You served or were a cop?

I should have asked another way. When you hear stories of people being killed in cold blood, like a shop keeper in an armed robbery,
do you not consider that to be an undesirable consequence of the actions of others?

What's the significance of the point of labour?

 

Okay, you've now made it clear what you both know and accept. Life goes on.

Are those who provide health care employed by government?

Is it? Are you referring to welfare programs?

And you wouldn't like to see any changes?

Would it make a difference? I've never killed an unarmed person.

In that example, yes. But when an armed robber is killed by an armed shop keeper, I would more likely consider it to have been a desirable consequence.

The point in time where Mother and child are initially separated from one another.

 

Not in the US, but you do realise that the government has full regulatory control over the health system and the private companies under it right?

No, just abortions. My understanding is that abortions are not covered under medicare/medicaid which is the way that it should be.

Changes to the democratic system of being "bound by the laws our elected/appointed members of government create for us?" Not at all for my country, but I can see an argument again the electoral college system in the US, in favour of a 'popular vote wins' system.

Not at all, was just curious if you killed the guy professionally. I guess you could just as easily have killed him outside of a profession, especially in a country with the gun crime of the US, so it was probably a silly question for me to ask!

Okay, so then explain how you were able to say this:

Doesn't the separation occur as a result of the labour process?

 

How things are done in your country are of interest to me only when/if they cause an undesirable effect on me.

What are the consequences?

That's what I was referring to.

 

Then why did you ask me if I would like to see any changes?

A life is taken.

Okay, but you would agree with aborting even during labour?

 

Changes in your government, not mine.

But not yours.

Prior to extraction and cutting of the cord, I believe it should remain the womans right to decide, although I would hope decisions to abort would be made much earlier, but until the time of birth is recorded for the birth certificate, a sovereign citizen does not yet exist although it would be hard to prove such exists at any time after birth.

 

I gave you an answer about my government didn't I?

Yes, and YOUR life is not taken by the shop keeper's life being taken is it?

 

Then implement them in YOUR government, I won't complain.

No, but the shop keepers life could possibly have some consequences for me if I shopped there, or none at all just like the abortion if I didn't shop there.

 

I didn't suggest any changes for my government did I?

What if the shop keeper was at a shop that you didn't shop at? Are you really going to tell me that you wouldn't consider the murder undesirable just because you didn't shop there?

 

This is in an Australian context. The guy that I was responding to and I are Australians where abortion is not nationally legal.