leopold99 said:
But you don't mind Bush or the patriot act?
Is Abortion a right someone should have?
- Thread starter hug-a-tree
- Start date
But you don't mind Bush or the patriot act?
spuriousmonkey said:
Even if he were as worried and concerned as you, it would make little difference ....President Bush will not be in office for long. Strange as it may seem to you, we have presidential term limits.
As to the Patriot Act, there's a provision in it which requires a congressional vote in order for it to continue.
So, see, there's really little to worry about concerning a "hostile take-over" of the nation. But, please, you may continue to worry as much as you'd like.
Baron Max
Silicon Ghost
Registered Member
The Government Has No Right To Not Allow A Person To Abort Because It Is Their Choice. Our Government Has Grown Way To Obsolete And Week.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
What are all you men doing on this thread??? As my wife delicately puts it, "I'll give a damn about what men think about abortion, just as soon as one of you bastards gets PREGNANT!"
This is a women's issue, let them decide. Go watch some football.
This is a women's issue, let them decide. Go watch some football.
Fraggle Rocker said:
Well, tell her that she SHOULD care what men think, because it's mostly men who make and enforce the laws of the world!
Fraggle Rocker said:
I agree. If a man had a group of cells growing in his body, would he turn to the legal system for approval to have it removed or to do anything about it? I don't think so.
Baron Max
Your wife is an idiot...
Fraggle Rocker said:
Indeed, it is rather easy for men to form an opinion on this matter. They are not taking the deadly risk of being pregnant. They don't take the risk of an abortion. They just stand there trying to sound interesting. In my experience you can voice an opinion to your partner/wife but in the end she has the final decision.
We can extrapolate this to a national level. It's really women who have to live with decisions made. Their opinions should weigh more.
One could state selfishly that men still make the decisions in the world, but I advise to get a girlfriend or a wife and you will see that this is not true.
The freedom to choose is a right that all people have.
That isn't really the question we're asking here. The real question is whether or not having an abortion should be considered good. If it is, then of course one has the right to do it, because it would only me a matter of excercising your right to choose, and no one would have a problem with it, as it is a good thing. However, if it is not good, then one would be expected not to do it because of its badness and ensuing implications, though in the end it's still a matter of choice.
So instead of debating whether or not it should be a right, why don't you look at the real issue being raised: Whether or not it's good. Only after that has been satisfacorily answered can you move on to talk about its legal implications.
That isn't really the question we're asking here. The real question is whether or not having an abortion should be considered good. If it is, then of course one has the right to do it, because it would only me a matter of excercising your right to choose, and no one would have a problem with it, as it is a good thing. However, if it is not good, then one would be expected not to do it because of its badness and ensuing implications, though in the end it's still a matter of choice.
So instead of debating whether or not it should be a right, why don't you look at the real issue being raised: Whether or not it's good. Only after that has been satisfacorily answered can you move on to talk about its legal implications.
Should we then not also discuss if giving birth is good?
In respect to the issue of abortion? If it helps one to determine the goodness or badness of abortion, then yes.
beyondtime:
Quarkmoon:
I also support a woman's right to choose... on whether to have sex.
Quarkmoon:
Obviously! And obviously the man doesn't have to support the child after it is born.
Last edited:
I thought that you knew, in liberal land babies are created via majiks and not through sex.
Then again in liberal land sex isn't a choice, it is just something that you do, like breathing.
Then again in liberal land sex isn't a choice, it is just something that you do, like breathing.
Baron Max said:I think we should all get together and tell all women what to do with their bodies and with their lives. If they fuck, and get pregnant, we should force them to have the child even if they can't afford it. ...and in so doing, we force them to fuck up their entire lives just for a few moments of sexual pleasure. That'll teach the bitch!!
Baron Max
Thats funny stuff...
Nobody is telling them what to do with their bodies.
They make the decision to have sex with their own bodies on their own. They are fully aware of the possiabilities of such actions, thus the point in the choice to do so or not.
Then again murding the children isn't their bodies, but the body of the separate organism.
Kind of funny how anti-choice most 'pro-choice' boobs really are.
They seem to oppose the concept that sex is a choice.
They also seem to oppose allowing the child the choice if it wishes to live or not, as the most common argument in the murder of a child is that it's life wouldn't be worth living and that it would rather be dead than live its life. If that were true, then the child would simply kill itself and that would be a choice that the child made on its own, as opposed to the parents just murdering it.
Then again since poor people supposedly can't raise children, why not get at the root of what's going on? Why not just admit to eugenics? Why not just go find all the poor people and use medical operations to remove their testies/ovaries?
leopold99 said:
Exactly because before then the human exhibits none of the qualifications of life.
Then again that argument is quite similar to the whole well it isn't fully developed crap. Which is another funny argument as humans aren't fully developed until they reach the stage known as adulthood.
mountainhare said:
And niether does the mother. This idea that just because a man can't give birth means he doesn't care about the child he helped make is ignorant. Carrying the child doesn't make it exclusively the women's choice, without that sperm she wouldn't have that fetus to abort.
QuarkMoon said:
Yet never do you see the argument that women shouldn't be able to just murder the children that they helped create...
If it is perfectly legit for a woman to just punt kick the baby into the trash without regard to the man, then how is that scenario any different, with the exception that the child actually lives...?
angrybellsprout:
Pro-lifers are telling women they must have unwanted children.
Some do not choose to have sex. There are those who are raped, for example (which includes date rape etc.) Then, there are those who choose to have sex but do not choose to become pregnant. This includes people who have accidents, and those who are too naive to know that there is a risk of pregnancy (which is more common than you may think).
Who said anything about murdering children?
A foetus is not a child. A foetus cannot make choices. If it could, we wouldn't be having this debate.
Again, we're not talking about murdering children here.
Also, it seems you aren't very aware of the "most common arguments" among pro-choice advocates. Maybe you need to do a little basic research. There are plenty of sites on the internet you can look at. Take a look, then come back and tell us what you think.
Another possibility: Why not provide welfare for poor people, so they can raise children?
Right. So killing a child is not the same as killing an adult. Killing a young child is not the same as killing an older child. And killing an unborn foetus is not the same as killing a newborn baby.
Pro-lifers are telling women they must have unwanted children.
Some do not choose to have sex. There are those who are raped, for example (which includes date rape etc.) Then, there are those who choose to have sex but do not choose to become pregnant. This includes people who have accidents, and those who are too naive to know that there is a risk of pregnancy (which is more common than you may think).
Who said anything about murdering children?
A foetus is not a child. A foetus cannot make choices. If it could, we wouldn't be having this debate.
Again, we're not talking about murdering children here.
Also, it seems you aren't very aware of the "most common arguments" among pro-choice advocates. Maybe you need to do a little basic research. There are plenty of sites on the internet you can look at. Take a look, then come back and tell us what you think.
Another possibility: Why not provide welfare for poor people, so they can raise children?
Right. So killing a child is not the same as killing an adult. Killing a young child is not the same as killing an older child. And killing an unborn foetus is not the same as killing a newborn baby.