It's disturbing how immoral the religious right is.

I see by your childish respnses I must be correct, and you are embarassed at being outed as an extremist.

 

You mean just like you childish attempts of false equivalence, never mind I'm sure someone, somewhere will get a laugh out of you .. I did.

 

At least you can laugh at yourself, a good sign that you are not completely brainwashed. There is hope for you yet.

 

Yet more misrepresentation .. seems you have a problem not only with the English language but being honest as well, never mind I'm sure you'll learn it as you grow up.

 

Actually I was just trying to see how long I could string you along. Looks like you will respond to any and every post no matter how ridiculous. Its a measure of your maturity.

 

you mean you like lying and misrepresenting others, and then producing some BS story to try and cover your ass .. yep sounds about the standard kinder garden level of maturity which fits you like a tee.

what is the betting you respond again.

 

Of course I will respond

All my posts are correct, the issue is not that I respond, but that I respond knowing the person on the other end is a waste of time. Extremists are always a waste of time as they are so invested in their bias they refuse to challenge themselves, and even the few that do almost never admit it if they find they are wrong.

 

no the issue is that you have to lie in order to even make an assumption, no problem though it's standard for those without the intelligence to offer anything else.

If you want a challenge try debating in an honest manner .. you never know you may actually learn something - though I doubt it.

now I'll leave you to wallow in your own illusions and self made (*)(*)(*)(*) pit.

 

Do you know what State Governor signed THE most liberal abortion law before Roe v. Wade?

I'll give you a hint....I quoted him debating Walter Mondate in my Signature Line.

 

No, none of my posts were lies. The truth hurts which is no doubt why you are responding so poorly.

 

Let me know when you decide to start using the truth - bye-bye :321:

 

Awww, don't stop now, I was hoping to get to 100.

 

And that's why they have the right to choose to have safe sex or not to have sex at all. Because they are grown adults with the freedom to make their own decisions. But your rights end where someone else's begin. And having a vagina does not grant you a license to murder. So don't sit there and pretend that you care about women when half of the children being killed by abortion are girls. The only "war on women" in western society is from people like you who think it should be okay to kill them before they are even old enough to even have legally recognized rights.

Now get the hell off that high horse, bro. You you look like you're about to fall.

 

correct they do, but then consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.

How true, now turn that away from the fetus and apply it to the woman and tell me what right any "person" has to use another persons body in order to live, and while you are at it tell me where it states that a person has the right to live inside someone else.

It certainly does if that vagina is being violated, exactly the same right you have should you penis be violated .. BTW murder is a legal term and does not apply to abortion.

True, though you only care about them until they are old enough to get pregnant.

Well as they are not women until they reach adulthood your statement is basically crap.

woman - An adult human female - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/woman

Why do pro-lifers have this obsession with trying to bastardize words in order to try and fit them to their own agenda.

and of course your high horse is soooo much more moral

 

Pro lifers use that word because of the moral connotations it involves-dramatic effect.

You are implying pro lifers are sexist.

Of course I am so much more moral than you. Even a dog or a cat or a wolf is more moral than you.

 

So you admit that pro-lifers use that word purely for "dramatic effect" and as such it has no factual bearing on the issue . .thank you for admitting that pro-lifers are disingenuous and prone to using appeals to emotion.

Am I, as the saying goes if the cap fits wear it.

Even though you have just admitted in your reply that you are a liar when you call a pro-choicer a murderer .. yep so moral of you

 

Again: who are YOU to decide what "morals" are?

Is it "moral" to lie about your age to participate in a forum ?

 

Sleep? Coma?... One would think that the ability to think, have problems and fears at that precise moment in time doesn't make your life worthless? Let's cut the crap about women's rights. This is about reducing population growth and fertility of the lower and criminal classes as well as eliminating physically or mentally retarded individuals before they are born... And that's fine with me, already the ancient Greeks and Romans left their deformed newborns to die in the wilderness. However, honesty would be the best policy when it comes to abortion. The women that absolutely don't want children can already get sterilized.

 

It's a potential life with potential worth.

What, women don't have rights? Every aborting woman has her own personal motivation. Very rarely is it reducing population growth.

Many doctors refuse to sterilize very young girls and women, but even tubal ligation is not 100% effective.

 

The macro-motivation: why society allows abortions. It's quite rare to view destroying another individual as a basic right, more justifications than just wanting to do so are needed. I provided some.

Really? I suggest that right to refuse is taken away from those working in the public sector.

 

But right now doctors do NOT give women their RIGHT to be sterilized. Taking away women's CHOICE to be sterilized isn't right, is it?

And some women may want children in the future when they can afford them and/or want them.

 

The macro motivation is that civilized society recognizes a woman's right to bodily autonomy and self-determination. The notion that an embryo (the stage most abortions are performed) is an individual is based on religious dogma, not science nor scripture.

 

Well... what is it exactly if not an individual member of the homo sapiens species? If you mean some more philosophical definition of an individual: science hardly gets into semantic battles, does it?

 

If it's a person it has no right to attack or use another person.

 

Right, that's why the parasitic behaviour of many retired, children, unemployed and sick people needs to be stamped out. If you can't support yourself and no-one will voluntarily support you, you should just go and lie in a ditch and wait for death to arrive.