If killing your baby was acceptable, would more women do it?

You ARE inconsistent...YOU wail about abortion being murder(like it's bad) but YOU advocate murdering DS babies who are actually living humans(and I do NOT get into semantic arguments)


If a woman has a legal abortion how do you know that SHE didn't decide she was "putting it out of it's misery"??


You think only The Royal You should decide???

 

YOU are the one who says it is okay to terminate a 19 week fetus because they have reduced brain function. And yet, many of these fetuses you say it is okay to kill have more brain function than a DS baby.

This is exactly what women who are considering abortions of convenience need to be told, before they carry through with their dark sinister deed.

And you call me inconsistent?

 

Guns for babies NOW!

 

WHO are YOU to decide what women should be told? You are implying all women are so stupid they know even less than YOU !!! OMGAWD!...

You do NOT know many women....

 

Fair enough .. but this is not how you come across.

I agree that in the later stages of a pregnancy a living human exists by pretty much any standard of measure.

 

of course they would. to the OP. if murder of anybody was acceptable more people would do it.

 

Care to provide some evidence to support this?

I can imagine that if murder were acceptable some of the first would be committed by the pro-life brigade as they hunt down those who perform abortions and those who support it.

 

possibly... anyways no i dont have any evidence, nor do i need it. its a fact if murder was acceptable it would happen more often. when anything is acceptable it happens more ofter thats a fact. no need to be stubborn and deny human nature and common sense.

 

Ok, fair enough.

 

Answer - no...most women anguish over the decision. Despite popular opinion, abortion is not a recreational passtime, it's a hard and difficult decision made under most difficult circumstances which can haunt a woman for life.

 

One more reason to protect women women from making a mistake that could haunt them the rest of their life.

Other women, who have foetocidal tendancies apparently, use abortion as their main line of defence against pregnancy.

 

It is NOT your responsibility to protect women....what don't you get about that? You don't own women!

Who protects YOU from making mistakes? Or is it OK if you make them?

You are not responsible for anyone's private decisions....do you counsel men who want vasectomies??


Now let's discuss how you don't like abotion unless the fetus has DS or is black......

 

Before you make fun of others, I think you should first understand the basic biological processes involved. There are no abortions of 'single cells' as cell division has already occurred in large form before even implantation.

You might want to ease up on the vitriol and the insults and focus instead on the biology. Just a thought.

 

Actually, lefties are the ones who target minorities for destruction.

It is the responsibility of all people to defend the weak and vulnerable. Women who are being abused, who are underaged, who are being exploited deserve our protection, and we are obligated to protect them.

You don't protect them by encouraging them to have sex, then scraping their uteruses to fund the PP baby killing machine.

I find your insistence that you only protect what you own interesting. Like I said, I've found that most who are zealous about abortion have a very low opinion of women, and are more interested in supporting the industries that exploit them (porn, prostitution, human sex trafficking) than they are in providing women wtih *choice*. They're more interested in protecting their own depraved *choices* than they are in providing women any sort of *rights*.

 

You are a damn hypocrite.

I don't even know how you have the balls to post this after you have admitted wanting to kill "retarded" children, how is that "defending the weak and vulnerable" .. you are the one targetting minorities.
You want to abuse woman by taking away ownership of part of their body

As I have said before, you and most of your ilk are only interested while its still inside the woman, after its born you don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about it .. it's not your problem - unless you are killing it for not being your version of perfect.

Projecting your own delusions onto others just makes you look stupid .. I am pr-choice, I don't support porn, I don't support prostitution (though I understand why some people chose it), I don't support human sex trafficking .. neither do I support killing "retarded" children, you do you have admitted it here on these boards.

 

So who died and made you keeper of the people. Pure arrogance to think you should be able to make choices for others, are you so much better than everyone else
Your interfering could also haunt them for the rest of their life, even worse you want to make it law to interfere with other peoples life.

and I bet you have loads of evidence to support this .. care to share it?

 

I know this wasn't a reply to me, but I must add that this could be said to the pro-life side as well and I don't see anywhere in Giftedone's response that it is said a single cell is aborted .. GD is saying that pro-lifers insist on calling a single cell a baby which, as you probably know, is biologically incorrect as well as being not strictly correct in the use of the English language.

Pro-lifers use words like baby and murder purely for there impact value, they have no relevance in the actual debate.

 

There is a difference between asking a person to be responsible for their actions versus taking ownership of their body. That difference, which you blur (deliberately?), is perhaps best seen in the just manner of extracting value from a man's efforts by sending funds to support a child, i.e. child support. In your world, that could easily be seen as controlling him or taking away ownership of his body (or at least the fruits of his body's efforts).

An accurate view of the matter says that if he is man enough to make the baby, he ought to be man enough to help take care of it.

Careful with the broad brush. Plenty of pro-life people give generously to programs which support adoptions, children, homeless, victims of domestic abuse, etc. Blanket statements like yours above do nothing to support your position except perhaps to the most crass of those who agree with you.

 

By taking child support from the father you are not removing his right to his own body, its not like they are taking a pint of blood and selling it to give the money to the mother.
We see it in a different way, you see it as the woman taking responsibility for her actions by continuing with the pregnancy, I see it as her taking responsibility for her actions by choosing not continuing with the pregnancy .. for the state to basically take ownership of a piece of a persons body for nine months (or thereabouts) to me is wrong, and while abortion may not be the best thing man has ever come up with, the rights of the woman trump the rights of the fetus everytime.

Hence why I said "most" and not all, almost all of the ones I have met here quite categorically state that once the fetus is born it isn't their problem anymore .. hell they even want to stop the government funding to some items.

 

Laws against abortion demand the mother experience inconvenience for nine months. Laws demanding child support inconvenience the father for eighteen years. I support both.

Both are an imposition on the parent to live in such a way to support the well being of another human being, one which they helped create. Both restrict the liberty of the parent to a degree in terms of how they exercise the use of their body. The mother cannot terminate the pregnancy and the father must give of the product of his body's labor.

 

Anti-Choice/Anti-Women's Rights folks are more interested in protecting their own depraved *choices* than they are in providing women any sort of rights.

 

I understand you position, however studies show that 50% of women who have abortions were using some form of contraception, they took responsibility to not become pregnant, yet for whatever reason they did, for the state to enforce that pregnancy could be seen as a punishment for an accident, should the woman (& man) be then allowed to sue the manufacturer of the contraception for its failure.

The problem with the abortion debate is trying to fathom who has the greater rights, the mother, the father or the fetus, it is something that will never be resolved and hence why the debate just keeps going round and round in circles.

 

Do you mind linking to that study? I am not familiar with it and would like to read it.

 

Actually that is not quite true. I said interriacial babies, not black babies. Yes, it is true, I have problems with certain groups of women that keep shooting out too many babies. But I thought I had made it clear in these situations that the ideal solution is not abortion, but forced sterilization rather.

Sorry, population control is still not a good enough excuse for an abortion.
Although I do like the implication... If an abortion is good because it gets rid of people, I guess pro-choicers don't have any problems with guns...

 

What is wrong with interracial babies?