FoxHastings said: ↑ Why do you believe having sex is a crime that should be punished? Right here: """And no one has ever said to enforce not having sex. What IS being said is to force those that do have sex to face the consequences of that choice because that choice resulted in a human life. Men are required to face those consequences all the time when the woman decides to not have an abortion even if the man would rather her have an abortion. You're fine with that are you not? Yet you feel that its perfectly fine to kill a human in order for the woman to not face the consequences of the same action the man took. Double standard wouldn't you say? Frankly I'd rather they both face the consequences and save a human life. No double standard here. Kal'Stang, Today at 5:33 AMReport #114Like+ QuoteReply
FoxHastings said: ↑ Gee, why don't MEN just stop having sex....no pregnancies, no abortions, and none of those horrible children things that "men" have to be FORCED to support. I was being sarcastic about children being "horrible" because you seem to think that men supporting their children is a bad thing..
LOL, you are the FIRST righty who ever said they don't care if their taxes go towords Welfare.... I answered your question....ban abortion, taxes go up...
Never said or insinuated such. I just pointed out the fact that men are held responsible for their action when a child is born even if they wanted the woman to get an abortion and they chose not to. While women get the chance to avoid their responsibility. Men have no choice to avoid the responsibility of their action. Why should women? I never said it was a bad thing that they are held to account. In fact I specifically stated that both the man and woman should be held accountable for their actions.
Where in that do I say to make sex a crime? Do you consider having a child to be punishment? You say you were being sarcastic before...but if you consider having a child a "punishment" then I have to question whether or not you were being "sarcastic".
I'm not a righty. :shrug: I have said time and again that I base my decisions on the issue. Not on left or right ideology.
and yet time and again your only “strategy” to address unwanted pregnancy is to demand people have less sex
Laugh all you want. You've yet to prove me wrong. I've argued against abortion. If you know of a better way to 100% guarantee not getting pregnant and not having an abortion, you're welcome to offer it up as a suggestion.
Sorry old thing but you deny that claim every time you post What you are “offering” is something that is “pie in the sky”. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9952051/ https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/abstinence-only-education-failure https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003...mplications-individuals-programs-and-policies https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rel...rams-are-ineffective-and-harmful-young-people And I am not even touching on the truly significant proportion of women who are in a stable relationship and/ or married who have abortions
Old thing? And yes, I get that you think you know me. You don't have a clue. All of that is not relevant. People kill everyone every day showing that aiming for zero murders is "pie in the sky" also. Yet we still have laws against killing other humans. And no, it doesn't matter if they're married either. Much for the same reason. And that IS what is being talked about here. The killing of a human life. No one has a Right to take a human life just because that human life might, or even WILL, make life harder just because they made a choice knowing that might be the result.
So you are 100% against all war. And deem having sex a crime that should be punished. We have the right to self defense....that includes women.
Yes. Emphatically yes. Again. No where have I ever argued for such. This is a strawman argument that has no bearing on anything that I have said. A ZEF is not attacking the woman. Pregnancy is literally a natural function of the woman's body. Without it humans would not be around.
Again, what is there to be feared from allowing the tiny minority concerned, fertile women, make the decision about something only they can do?
You were referring to killing human beings. A fetus is not a "human being". So "the unborn" are not "human beings". Therefore it is not lawful to apply laws against murder or manslaughter to "the unborn".
Bold: Happens all the time when a person murders a woman or causes her unborn child to die against her will. Rest: Since I became pro-life I have not referenced human "beings". That is a spiritual argument, and my argument does not rely on such. My argument relies on scientific facts, historical references, and logic. Nothing spiritual about it.
I was using a British term Unlike others Aussies understand regional English as spoken in multiple countries Hmmm I supply research showing that abstinence is ineffective and teaching abstinence can actually increase risk and suddenly you shift to “but it’s a babeeee” Ok - WHEN is it a “baby”? At conception? At implantation? At viability? At birth?
And some of those laws have exception for foetal development and some have exception for abortion Your “arguments” do NOT rely on “scientific facts” as shown when I just handed you your “facts” in relation to abstinence. if you want to make this claim LINK to support your arguments https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
What is society doing to prevent them having to make that choice in the first place? Are LARCs easily accessible and affordable? What is the background knowledge of people in relation to successful use of contraception (I know THAT is abysmal as I keep having to teach members of this board - look up “typical use” contraception) What programs are in place to financially assist women who are seeking abortion due to financial reasons? in other words what are YOU doing, practically to reduce abortion?
Such laws are recent BS right wing laws that would be rejected by a sane SCOTUS. I posted a legal definition from a law website and you squealed. But you say "human" and that word is an adjective, if you remember your 5th grade English class. So when you say "human" it needs a noun for it to modify.... like "being" which is not a religious term. Let's see you prove otherwise.
Uh huh. Where did I mention "baby"? A ZEF becomes a distinct human life with its own distinct DNA a few days (up to a week) after the sperm and egg meet. At this time it is still in the fallopian tube.
My argument is not about abstinence. Its about abortion. It is a scientific fact that a ZEF has its own distinct DNA. That should not even need to be linked because it is widely known. It is a scientific fact that DNA is human DNA. Again, that should not even need to be linked because it is widely known. It is also a fact that a ZEF is not dead or an inanimate object, but a life. Again, that should not even need to be linked because it is widely known. Do you dispute any of the above facts? Yes, or No?
About 15% of the population is fertile. They are a unique segment of humanity, passing through a stage that has a beginning and end. All abortions are from their numbers. It doesn't seem exceptional that such an important minority would want to have the say in something that only applies to them.
Such laws have been upheld for decades by multiple courts even in liberal controlled states. Call it whatever you want. Doesn't change the facts. And if you read what I say, rather than read what you THINK I say, I say "human life". There's your noun for you.
