Junkieturtle said, No it should not matter because the woman holds all the cards. Our laws do not recognize the father while the unborn is in the womb. He is a nonissue. The man should not pay at all whether he has the children or not. She should have to pay either or ..it was her body, her decision remember? The woman should always have to pay the father shouldn't. His rights were not recognized. Buying a house or car .comes with responsibilities some you don't even know will come about. Is the owner obligated to do what comes along with owning them? What is the right thing to do? Tell the car dealership that you did not realize the tires would need to be changed, or the Home Owners Association that you won't be paying the increase in dues? Women know that if they have sex .pregnancy might happen. The responsible thing is to allow the child to live, not kill it. That is walking away and taking the easy way out. The woman should have to pay regardless .it was her body her decision remember? The man as I said is screwed either way especially if he did not want the child to begin with. You said earlier that you would want to cut off when the woman should be able to kill. Now you say she should have the right to kill cause its her body. Which is it? You call killing a great solution to solving problems? Wow. You are again telling me I am wrong ..can you do that if your a moral relativist? So let me get this straight. Its better the kid die in the womb by a hired hit man .than to be born for a few seconds and then left to die. LMAO Do you even read what you write?
You're really grasping here. If you buy a house, and an issue arises, but that issue doesn't affect other people and is not against the law, you're free to deal with it however you want(including the right to not do anything about it at all), as long as the way you deal with it is also not against the law or causing harm to someone else. And that's your opinion. Talk to God, I didn't make the genders operate the way they do. I've explained my position and reasoning numerous times. You ask the same questions each time even though I explain to you why my position is what it is. No, I don't call it a great solution, I call it a necessary one for a woman who has decided that it is what she needs. Remember, being pro-choice does not mean I love love love me some abortion. It was my understanding that you objected to partial birth abortion for that very reason. Otherwise, why make the distinction between abortion and partial birth abortion?
You're still not listening, Cady. Why you feel the need to keep citing these things, I'm not sure. It's clear to everyone that most pro-lifers hold contempt for PP; this has already been acknowledged. It's also clear, and has also already been acknowledged, that some pro-lifers engage in deplorable debate tactics. What you don't seem to understand is that your tactics are no less deplorable than theirs. Rather than address the other side honestly, you simply call them "anti-woman" or some other such label. It's pathetic and juvenile. It's become impossible to have a constructive dialogue on abortion because of people like yourself. This is the point I've been trying to make to you for several pages and yet you still don't seem to get it.
You are contradicting yourself. You acknowledge that prolifers, of course, want to "get rid of" Planned Parenthood. But you deny their motives are anything but lofty. I have provided facts, links, quotes, proof that extreme Texas legislation is punitive, documented lies by pro-lifers, evidence of edited "exposé" videos, and proof that defunding Planned Parenthood costs, not saves, taxpayers' money. I have offered ample evidence. You have offered nothing but denial and insults. There will be no constructive dialogue on abortion until you can acknowledge tactics used by pro-lifers have been dishonest and the motive is vengeance. Ask them. They will tell you themselves, they hate PP with a vengeance.
If you have been fortunate enough to have been given the gift of life how on earth can you take that away from someone else?
If having the "gift of life" means a woman, without access to birth control or abortion, has not even the autonomy make her own life decisions, what kind of gift is that? We don't want to go back to this: Mom doesn't look so happy. Neither does Dad, for that matter.
Bold print won't turn a logic-free soundbite into a sensible statement. Not being an arrogant git, I understand my life isn't special. If I hadn't been born, my mother would have had a different kid. Justin, by being born, you essentially killed your sibling by denying them life. Are you proud of murdering your sibling like that? And why aren't you out breeding this second? If you're not breeding to the maximum extent, that makes you murderer by your own standards, being that you're preventing people from being born.
A "gift" is something freely and willingly given, even joyfully given. It is never something forced. NOT giving a gift is never something "taken away" from someone else, as the someone else doesn't have that until it is given.
1) There's no contradiction. I have never denied their motives are anything but lofty. You're just not being honest. Once again, it's clear that many pro-lifers hate PP and would like to get rid of it because they perform abortions. 2) Yes, you keep offering evidence of a point already acknowledged, more than once. Again, it's clear that many pro-lifers engage in tactics that are dishonest. As do many pro-choicers. 3) I've not insulted you, though I have questioned your behavior and tactics. It is you who continues to employ inflammatory language and intelluctual dishonesty. Answer me this: For those who are pro-choice and want to defund PP, what is their motive?
It's simple, they don't understand that cutting funding to PP will be more expensive. I think there are VERY few pro-choicers supporting PP funding cuts, however. Now, are you going to accuse ME of employing inflammatory language and intellectual dishonesty?
Makkede: "Lifers are hypocrites. They insist that all they want to do is 'save babies' but that is a lie and they know it. Why are lifers hypocrites, and why does their position fail?" Pro-abortion advocates are hypocrites. They insist they are not killing a child, but this is a lie and they know it. Why are pro-abortionists hypocrites and why does their position fail? They're hypocrites because admitting that they're killing babies would make them feel bad. They would stop doing it but they'd feel bad and that can't be allowed.
I don't think there is anyone that doesn't understand what is happening during an abortion. We can all agree that it is a biological human in the womb, but that's not the question, nor is the question about your opinion on the moral value of the act. It's whether a woman should have the right to make that choice without the restriction of other people's feelings and morals dictating she can't. It's about personal freedom and controlling your own destiny. It's about not being a slave to your own reproductive organs. To me, it just seems asinine to make a law about what a woman can and cannot do on the inside of her own body. I know others disagree obviously, and they're entitled to do that, but a world where we tell women they are slaves to their reproduction is just not the world I want to live in. I don't and have never bought into the idea that a woman is consenting to nine months of pregnancy every time she has sex. If there is a God and he frowns on abortion, those people that have them will have to deal with that later, however I don't personally feel that will be an issue anyone is going to have to deal with after they die.
There is no "someone" in the early stages of pregancy but I get your point. There is the potential for the creation of a living human. There is no "life of a living human" that is being taken away because it does not exist yet. That someone allowed that potential to happen in the case of one person is not necessarily a rational for the "fortunate person" to help every other "potential human" realize that potential. The world would be a really crowded place if we did that.
Well, what if they support defunding PP as well as all other publicly-funded health care programs? That wouldn't make it more expensive. What would their motive be then? I've already implied as much in response to your previous post. Yes, calling people fanatical and vengeful is intellectually dishonest.
I asked this of you before, but you didn't answer. It really goes to the heart of this issue. At what point does it become "a living human"? When does it become "someone"? Is it at 23 weeks and 4 days? 48 weeks? At birth? When?
This discussion began when I said if pro-lifers wanted to reduce the abortion rate, they would pursue policies proven to achieve that. The policies preferred by pro-lifers do not reduce the abortion rate. Their latest brainchild, the transvaginal ultrasound, has never caused women to change their minds. It does however, humiliate and punish women who have abortions. The same is true of other policies preferred by pro-lifers. Notice especially the second one on this chart: I stand by my original statement. It only makes sense to choose policies proven to achieve the goal.
There are differing opinions. 20-24 weeks is the generally accepted time period when "sentience" is admitted to be possible. Much prior to that there is not significant brain function to be considered "a living human" ... a Doctor would pronounce the organism brain dead and call for the Morg.
What does any of this have to do with woman's rights. If the woman owns her body…and abortion should be legal and the woman's decision…then nothing else should matter to those who are pro-choice. If they deny any woman the right to abort at any time…this goes against the reason for abortion in the first place. They hypocrisy lies with those that say…WOMANS CHOICE ABOVE ALL ELSE….THEN DENY HER THE RIGHT TO KILL DURING THE LATE TERM…BECAUSE OF THEIR MORALITY. PRO-CHOICERS ARE HYPOCRITES…..
Not really. There's a difference between having an abortion when the fetus isn't sentient as opposed to when it is. Ignoring that difference so you can have an absolutist position has no effect on the fact that the distinction does exist.
IMO it is the pro lifers who are hypocrites because they don't adopt any unwanted children. They hardly practice what they preach.
Could you prove this? And why does the placement of children have anything to do with this? This is about right and wrong? Shouldn't everyone adopt? Not just those who oppose killing? What does your side do? I can't say nothing because I have no clue or stats on this. Do you? Or do you just make generalizations based on what YOU THINK IS TRUE? Practice what they preach? And do pro-aborts commit more heinous crimes because they are pro-abortion? Do they rape more? Attack people? Based on your statement here…you do. Your position on abortion is violent…..therefore you must be violent people in other aspects of your life. Wow. That explains a lot of things.
My dear this is about bodily rights. Your side…the pro-abort side say that no woman should be FORCED….and that is WHAT YOU ARE DOING…you are taking her rights away. What right do you have to do this? Maybe the woman does not care that its a life…and human….all things you deny. YOU ENLAVE HER. YOUR REALLY NOT FOR WOMENS RIGHTS AT ALL ARE YOU? YOUR NOT FOR THE UNBORN…NOT FOR THE WOMAN BECAUSE NOW YOU WANT TO DENY HER RIGHT TO HER…..HER….HER….HER BODY. ALL BECAUSE ITS YOUR OPINION. Now mine does not count….my opposition to abortion is a joke to you…you say I deny her rights. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. YOUR POSITION IS NOT ONLY IMMORAL….ITS A JOKE….ITS LAUGHABLE…..ITS SAD…..ITS DARK
Ultimately, you're right, it is about bodily rights. Which is why I tend to favor unrestricted abortion if I could have things my way. But since I can't, and since we live in a society with millions of viewpoints, with none of them being the "right" one, the best way to handle it is to leave the choice up to the mother. This isn't an issue where someone is doing something that affects another person, like murder or rape or theft, so there are hardly any objective angles here. It's ultimately about discomfort, yours, and your feeling that your discomfort ought to be enough to remove a woman's choice. As I said, I favor banning late term abortion as a concession to those in this country who are pro-life. It can't always be about one side dictating to the other side, there has to be middle ground. Now, I know there can be no middle ground for you on this, and I feel sorry for you in that respect because you're not really going to accomplish anything by stomping your feet and saying "This way is the ONLY way it should be". I try not to do that either, which is precisely the reason I'm willing to compromise. Do you understand what compromise is? You seem not to, and whether that's on purpose or a general ignorance of the concept, I cannot say, so before I make assumptions, I'm going to ask. And this issue isn't something you can extend into other areas like murder. You can't make the argument that it should be okay to kill anyone because abortion is legal, because those are two different sets of circumstances. It is not me trying to take away a woman's right, it is your side doing this. As I've pointed out before and given examples of, the law puts restrictions on everything, even freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. There are no absolute rights, not even the right to life, since we can put people to death and fight wars and let homeless people die on the streets or people die from a lack of healthcare. Having the law say that you do have the right to get an abortion, but only within this set of reasonable conditions would not be any different than the thousands of other examples of reasonable restrictions contained within the law. What's important is that the woman still has the choice to get an abortion if she wants, hopefully free from the foolish restrictions your side wants to make like waiting periods, invasive and completely unnecessary procedures prior to having the abortion, or even the doctor sitting there explaining what an abortion is, as if the woman was unaware of what she was doing. And, it baffles me why you have a problem with me opposing late term abortion. Are you not against ALL abortions or have I misunderstood your position? Should this not be something we can actually find common ground on, or are you so caught up in opposing and demonizing pro-choice people that you can't even bring yourself to see that we actually agree in some areas of this debate?
Do not blame your lack of common sense and understanding of personal freedom on me. Belief in individual freedom, the right to do what one wishes with ones own body, applies as far as another person's nose. In general it is a belief that a person should be able to do what one wishes with their body so long as they are not harming the body of another. In the early stages of pregnancy .. there is no "another" .. no living human exists. In the later stages of pregnancy this is not the case (IMO) such that abortion would be interferring with the rights of another living human. There is legitimate debate over the latter stages .. what constitutes a living human. There are no valid concrete arguments, that I have ever heard of, for the claim that a living human exists at conception. If there is no living human in existence then abortion is not violating the rights of another human.
