GOP's 20-Week abortion bans are devastating for women like me....

Making abortion illegal has never stopped abortion .... EVERY generation had abortions. And, NO, women would NOT be healthier.

 

Straight answer and no filibustering...

Scenario- A woman is one week pregnant. Due to medical complications, if she carried to viability, she would DIE......though the fetus would survive....

would you deny her the right to an abortion? Yes or No?

 

I've yet to hear a mute publicly protest being executed...have you?

 

Funny, I seem to recall more than one instance of a murderer being charged with 2 counts for killing a pregnant Woman. How does that work?

Heres an example so you dont accuse me of making it up.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ss...killing_pregnant_women_a_double_homicide.html

This statement is a double whammy from my point of view as it demonstrates that it is considered 2 lives, and of course the choice of wording of the bolded part runs right against your claims of no personhood till birth.


Face it Fox, you and your side are caught in a hypocrites prison. You are not onboard with killing a murderer, because you dont believe life should be taken.....but you're ok with taking life as long as it's wrapped up in a warm fuzzy feeling called Womens choice.


Right and Wrong sorts this out for those who understand it, so we dont have to try and walk that Hypocrite hiwire and keep our balance.

 

Would we even be able to tell if a woman is pregnant one week(7 days in?) To answer your question, yes in that case. The woman is the human being whose actually alive and therefore takes precedence. In addition, I'd make it compulsory for every woman with complicated birth to have their Fallopian tubes tied. Since they can't conceive, there's no reason for them to be pregnant.

I mean, really, it's a waste of time for doctors to perform abortion on someone who theoretically would not need to be in the hospital at all. This would lower abortion numbers even further. (It'd also lower medical costs.)

 

Ya, those murderers took away the woman's choice, just like you want to do.

However, those laws do NOT take away the fact that abortion is legal and that is not based on the fetus being a "person".

IF the fetus is declared a "person" then the woman has every right to self-defense against that "person". IF the fetus has the rights of a "person" then it also has to abide by the restrictions . It has no super right to harm another.


I never said I didn't believe in executing murderers.

You are OK with taking life if it's born.

 

I see...so that extra penalty was not for "murder"...but taking away a choice? LOL...Nah, noones oging to buy that one Fox. You dont get time for taking away a choice lol.

And they dont take away the fact that it is considered a person.

The baby isnt causing any harm that wasnt imposed on the Mother by her own actions.

Welcome a starving kid into your home Fox, and then kill him for eating your food. Sounds crazy doesnt it? It should...it is.

Of course I am. if someone has made any of the choices that we deem to be unforgivable in our society.....then yes, take that life. The person had their chance and choices.

Apologies if I lumped you in with the Anti Death penalty crowd, but 99% of the time it's the same people who are pro choice. My mistake if that doesnt fit you.

 

What about the medical cost of raising a child on welfare or as an orphan? Which costs more? A one time operation, or 18 years of government handouts?

 

Bolded above, mine. WOW! You sure want control of women!!!! WHO are YOU to decide medical decisions for others? Can I decide YOURS?

I thought you think it's woman's obligation to give birth. Don't you want her to keep trying even if it kills her?


And, along with a host of un-addressed issues you never did tell me where you got the weird idea that women have an obligation to give birth....did it come to you in a dream?

 

Oh boy. I think he is going to respond mine next!

... or he will ignore it, because it's irrefutable.

 

He has ignored just about everything and hasn't refuted anything........but that's Anti-Choicers, faced with facts they just melt away or have meltdowns....

 

But you think you have the right to force women to use their bodies against their will?

 

Control of women? No, just common sense. The Abortion debate is a debate on morality. One we can end by eliminating virtually every loophole. And one of the biggest loopholes is your beloved circumstantial births. But see, why should they put themselves through that misery? Tying the tubes while we're at it is an act of mercy and kindness. If we can identify every woman with high-risk complications, we can save them a lot of pain and misery along with US Taxpayer dollars.

So, no, I 'don't want her to keep trying'. Her trying is what allows us to keep one of the most repugnant, most repulsive social policies in the US/Western World today alive(Abortion). I want healthy births from healthy relationships to further spur on humanity. How difficult of a concept is that to grasp?

And her obligation to give birth is silently implied through society's existence. Without manpower, there's no economy. Without manpower, there's no society. The very intricacies of society refutes Singularity as a concept. You think this is about you, Fox? You think it's about me? It's about a much, much bigger concept known as the world 5-10-15 years from now. Try as we might, we cannot break away from the web of humanity.

No, we have an obligation to co-exist within that web. Every war that ever was in our history, and every social contingency that we ever came across was a result of mankind trying to break free from the web. And a female's part in that web, is that she delivers birth. And until we find a way to change that(and if that way is viable), that's her role.

Be mad at nature, not at me. I'm just a Naturalist who believes in Natural Order. Breaking free from the web, has created social strife and discord. History has shown that our futile attempts to escape the web are for naught. But history has also shown that the very few times Humanity has obeyed the Social Order, Humanity flourished along side it. I'm a Humanist, a Darwinist, a Naturalist. I want to preserve and create a new Social Order. Blending 21st century knowledge with 19th century knowledge.

 

Someone's anxious, you're next. The debate is repetitive, I'd love it if you considered any responses to Fox as a response to yourself, since you more or less believe in the same theology. And no, that theology far from irrefutable is only accepted because peer pressure demands we accept it. If people started to say out loud 'we have a collective responsibility to each other', Individualists would scream from the roof top.

When in reality, we all know it to be true deep down inside. We can't accept truths that are inconvenient to us, so we hide from them. We try to make those truths sound different from what they really are. There's levels within our psyche we naturally do not want to go to. Peer pressure is how we sustain our desired social outcomes.

Something that's really irrefutable, doesn't need peer pressure. Something that's really irrefutable, doesn't have opposition. The very fact that I oppose your theology, whether you agree with that opposition or not is proof that it's not irrefutable.

 

Really doesn't matter what anyone's personal opinion is.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled and it has revisited this ruling many times and revisited it several times in last few years...and the LAW is....a Fetus must first obtain the state of PERSONAGE to be a Human Being.

PERSONAGE is defined at the point that a Fetus has been BIRTHED either naturally or via C-section or other and is living and can either stay alive with or without mechanical help and must be COMPLETELY SEPERATED FROM THE MOTHER....umbillical cord cut.

Abortion is LEGAL in the United States.

And will remain legal.

AboveAlpha

 

Your "common sense" has proven to be, not so "common", ex. this forum. So maybe you should call it "your belief".

The rest can be summed up pretty easily... You are trying to pass blame onto society and nature, for your opinion, that you are not proud of..."Be mad at nature, not at me" (AmericanNationalist)

 

And you have the privilege of being on my ignore list for such a failure of an extrapolation. That statement referred specifically to the Social Order of the world. Why would I be 'angry' at the world, for my own position? I clearly stated it, because I support it. I both want to know and I don't want to know how the hell you managed to come up with that.

 

I don't say anything about you being angry. How did you come up with that?

Are you angry?

 

It seemed rather obvious that's what you were going for by 'placing blame' on the world for my positions. But no, I no more place blame on the world than a scientist who observes climate change blames the world for its changes. I merely observe reality as it is, plain as day. I don't "blame" anything. I was saying that to get Fox to understand that my position isn't personal, it's rational.

It's also something we can't refute. Maybe, MAYBE we'll develop the technology to refute it. But even if we do, I'm going to be a betting man that there'll be some kind of mechanical flaw that makes it liable in the long run.