To the anti-abortion people, a question...

The vapidity of the rhetoric is irrelevant.

All that matters are the actions.

Doctors have been murdered and clinics have been bombed!

The legislative efforts to ban abortion are ongoing and it is up to the individual to do their own research on the topic rather than to just make assumptions based upon a lack of subject matter knowledge.

 

And those actions were condemned by all mainstream pro-life organizations.
Again, the AGENDA has been going on 45 years.

 

Yet more vapid allegations with zero substantiation.

 

Here's a list of all are non-violent groups which have millions of members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-abortion_organizations_in_the_United_States ,except Army of Goders which has a handful of members.

 

NOTHING in your link substantiates your specious allegation that "those actions were condemned by all mainstream pro-life organizations".

 

What, are you telling me you regard the lives of paedophiles as 'sacred'? Or serial killers, or rapists, or psychopaths . . . all of whom were once helpless babes in arms and totally dependent? Hard to imagine that, isn't it. Well I'm telling you that all life isn't sacred, and all of those above are mutants of homosapiens and the world would be a better place if they'd been put down at birth.

 

Could I see proof that all mainstream "pro-life" organizations condemned those actions?


What agenda has been going on for 45 years? Killing doctors to honor "life" ?

 

My recollection is that it was the NOTABLE ABSENCE of condemnation that demonstrated that the mainstream "pro-life" organizations were tacitly CONDONING those illegal actions against doctors and clinics.

 

i'm pro-choice on this issue, no one has a right to force someone else to deliver & then be responsible to raise an unwanted... so, for me, whether or not it's 'alive' is irrelevant.

back in the '80's there were 'safeguards' in place that prevented the same person from getting multiple abortions in a specific period of time... do these still exist? i'd be all for a central database, such as is with prescriptions now, whereby tracking an individual to see if it's a 'regular' thing for them, if so, put them on a mandatory hysterectomy list, detain them, neuter them... problem solved.

 

Which sin is beyond the power of Jesus to forgive? As much as I find those people despicable, scripture is clear that the Lord is the Judge not us. Now the government will do what it does for public safety and I have no problem locking them up until they die in order to protect society. But killing is wrong, even necessary evil is still evil.

 

Uh, no, you can't be "Pro-Choice" if you think women's medical history should be public or that they should have their medical procedures rationed or that they should be punished for having (what you consider) too many medical procedures.

You cannot be Pro-Choice if you think women should be forced to undergo unneeded medical procedures.

Saying you're Pro-Choice and then wanting to punish women who choose to have an abortion is an oxymoron....it just isn't logical.

 

never said 'all women', actually specifically said, those that recieve an abortion should be kept in a database much like that of everyone that gets any prescription pain killers to prevent doctor shopping. afaik, these are not public records until a 'violation' occurs. so, if a woman is 'abusing' the abortion system, they can be singled out as irresponsible and given a hysterectomy, simple...

 

Who else do you want to have rationed medical care.

I know a kid who has had almost a dozen operations to repair a birth defect....do you want to cut him off now? Has he reached your limit of what is the right amount?


Do you want diabetics to receive only a rationed amount of insulin because they keep using it?

There is no law against "irresponsible" so that would be impossible to prosecute.

And forced sterilization? You aimed that soley at women...and it's unConstitutional, women have rights whether you like it or not.

 

Dear @Blaster3 and @FoxHastings
Since you two do not agree on terms/conditions of legalizing abortion vs. penalizing liberties or infringing on due process,
And since other people and whole groups ALSO do not agree on these either,
What do YOU think of the idea of separating jurisdiction and policies?

What if both major parties could draft up their own terms and conditions,
and taxpayers could pay into and be under the beliefs and creed of their choice.

Wouldn't this solve a major part of the problem?
By not subjecting people of one set of beliefs or party to the
terms and conditions set by the other?

If we allow Religious Organizations to fund and run their own
schools and hospitals with different policies, why not require
Political Parties to fund and run their own belief systems?

Is this where we are heading?
Since we don't agree on beliefs, why not admit this
and quit trying to ram such beliefs through govt on everyone else to pay for.
We wouldn't let other types of religious organizations abuse govt that way.
Why aren't we enforcing the same limits on political religions and partisan beliefs?
Why are political parties given free reign to push their beliefs through
govt in ways that other religious organizations would be barred from doing???

 

comparing birth defects to wanton careless illicit behaviour... whew! crazy... so we should just allow the addicts to fill as many scripts for meds as they so desire, eh... nutjobz

 

because of the 'madd mothers' begging/lobbying washington for 'rules' to raise their children, if they'd just concentrate at being a parent & accept the responsibility that comes with it, we wouldn't need all these bs regulations... alas, they shuck they're responsibility upon the rest of us...

 

The right of American citizens to their own body is NOT a mere "belief" it is a FACT.


Political parties are NOT given free rein to push their beliefs through....


I will always try to "ram through" my "belief" that woman have a right to their own body just like everyone else because taking away some people's rights is very dangerous and IS a slippery slope to taking away rights from others who may
also not "march in goose step " with the ruling party..

 

How TF are women who have abortions shucking their responsibility on to "the rest of us" ????


You are right though about "regulations". We, like Canada, do NOT need women's reproduction REGULATED as Repubs want...my, goodness! how they LOVE those regulations ......on women.

 

Having sex is NOT " illicit ".

Sex is legal. Abortion is LEGAL....Do you know what "legal" means? It means it is not against the law NOR does it mean putting a limit on legal medical procedures.

 

It should be, without birth control, if the woman is planning on getting an abortion.

There are numerous instances in the law where Americans don't have the right to their own bodies. Drug use for one. Sexual intercourse where one of the parties isn't considered able to give their consent. Even restrictions on what type of medical treatment a doctor is allowed to provide.

 

Why?
Having sex isn't against the law.
Using or not using BC is not against the law.
Having an abortion is not against the law.

Now you want Bigger Government to make having sex against the law !!!! Good luck with that!

Funny how you had "right to one's own body" explained to you dozens of times and still don't get it.


There is a concept called body autonomy. Its generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs

 

Why couldn't they make not using birth control against the law if the woman has an abortion?

It would be difficult to prove in the majority of cases, but some women would end up being prosecuted.

 

There's an old thread I just found that you might be interested in: If killing your baby was acceptable, would more women do it?

 

And here I figured you of all posters could understand her question. Funny you do not understand.

I understand what she asked.

 

Democrats have had a scholar among their ranks propose that up to the age of 5, kids can be killed by the mother that bore them. It seems ruthless but in his university his arguments gained traction. Movements might take decades to get action. See the slave movement for one example and how it took many decades to get the anti slave law on the laws of America.

The question deserves an answer and not a dodge.

My actions against abortion are confined to the forums. I do not show up at their abortion arenas of death to end those.

My words of protest plus those words by those approving abortions are limited to here. It is talk is all it amounts to.