Is Abortion a right someone should have?

[hug-a-tree]

A foetus is not a child.

I don't understand. Why do you think that?

 

[leopold]

this issue isn't decided yet?

 

[angrybellsprout]

angrybellsprout:



Pro-lifers are telling women they must have unwanted children.

Who made the choice to have sex?

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).

Another common liberal thing to do, pretend that rape constitutes the vast majority of abortions and also pretend that rape justifies dumb sluts having abortions.

While I personally don't agree with abortion due to rape, as again your are murdering a child and would rather say put it up for adoption, I don't really see many people trying to make it illegal, including myself.

Another fun liberal thing to do is talk about 'accidents', afterall sex isn't a concious choice that one makes, it just 'happens' kinda like breathing. I think Marshall Mathers said it best:

What?
She tripped?
Fell?
Landed on his dick?

Then again still trying to justify dumb sluts murdering children. Maybe if they are too stupid to understand how biology works, maybe they shouldn't be having sex? Though that doesn't go along with the liberal philosophy of, if you have a vagina why aren't you using it.

Who said anything about murdering children?

Because the intentional denial of the basic right to life when said being hasn't done anything to forfit said right isn't murder...

A foetus is not a child. A foetus cannot make choices. If it could, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Oh that's right, a fetus isn't a child. It is a unicorn that magically changes its entire taxonomy into that of a human upon passage through the birth canal.

As mentioned earlier liberals obviously don't have the ability to make the choice of having sex or not, thus they must not be humans either and are perfectly expendable objects.

Blyscot zygote embryo fetus infant toddler adolescent adult, are all humans, just different developmental stages. all with the same DNA and the same taxonomy.

Again, we're not talking about murdering children here.

Correct, we are talking about the murdering of unicorns.

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.

Because one of the most common arguments isn't that the child's life isn't worth living thus doing it a benefit by murdering it?

The parents won't love it, thus the child will grow up unwanted and nobody would want to live that life...

The parents will be so poor that they will hardly be able to provide for the child, and who wants to be that poor? Just do the humanitarian thing and murder it.

Another possibility: Why not provide welfare for poor people, so they can raise children?

Or better yet, if you are that poor don't have sex? Shouldn't you be out getting a job with all that time you are using to make those babies that you so despiratly want to murder?

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.

Murdering our children, the most defenseless humans, is far worse than murdering an adult...

 

[angrybellsprout]

We already have that. It's called c-o-n-g-r-e-s-s, and the rules are called l-a-w-s. They prevent people from stealing, yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater, and doing other wrong things.

Too bad that darn Constitution thing gives states the rights to pass their own laws on issues not expressly enumerated within the writen text of said document.

Then again the judiciary doesn't really give a damn about the Constitution either and just writes laws on whatever it wants to without any regard to the Constitution...

 

[leopold]

Then again still trying to justify dumb sluts murdering children. Maybe if they are too stupid to understand how biology works, maybe they shouldn't be having sex? Though that doesn't go along with the liberal philosophy of, if you have a vagina why aren't you using it.

since you are so pro life how about we give you all the babies that would have been aborted and let you take care of them

don't raise the issue of accidents or whatever.
like i said on the first page
a man is TOTALLY responsible for a womans pregnancy

 

[QuarkMoon]

Blyscot zygote embryo fetus infant toddler adolescent adult, are all humans, just different developmental stages. all with the same DNA and the same taxonomy.

Great point, although you have to take the law into account. According to the law, the fetus is not considered a child until it takes a breath outside of the womb. It's a technicality, but it is the law, therefore it is not murdering children.

But I must say I agree with everything else you said, I won't call you a troll anymore.

 

[leopold]

Too bad that darn Constitution thing gives states the rights to pass their own laws on issues not expressly enumerated within the writen text of said document.

Then again the judiciary doesn't really give a damn about the Constitution either and just writes laws on whatever it wants to without any regard to the Constitution...

what does this have with the issue of abortion?

 

[hug-a-tree]

since you are so pro life how about we give you all the babies that would have been aborted and let you take care of them

Oh wow, that was lame.

 

[leopold]

Oh wow, that was lame.

yeah, it WAS lame
but not near as lame as forceing a woman to have a child she doesn't want.

 

[angrybellsprout]

A child is a small human being which exists after birth. A bunch of cells or a foetus is not a child.

Yep they are unicorns.

An unborn mouse has a heart beat too. Is it entitled to equal protection?

Entitled to the equal protections that a mouse would get.

Do you eat meat? Would you say that an adult cow, which was killed so you could eat it, has more or less sentience than, say, a month-old human foetus? If more, then why is it ok to kill the cow, but not the foetus?

Do you eat plants? Guess what they are alive as well...

Then again I'm sure that liberals just wish that we ate our children, as that is the natural thing that you find in nature.

Too bad an adult cow is well, a cow and a young human is not. I know that whole taxonomy thing can get a little complicated, but it is something that you should really give a try.

No birth control is 100% effective. Condoms can break. Sometimes women forget to take the pill. Some people are raped, or otherwise forced to have sex against their will.

There are two forms of 100% effective birth control that I know of.

Pants and removal of the reproductive organs, kind of hard to make babies with testies or ovaries.

Though we all know that liberals try to justify all abortions by pointing out the rare case of abortion that doesn't even constitute 1% of all abortions.

I ask: who are YOU to make decisions for other people? I'm sure that almost any woman who has considered an abortion will tell you it is an agonisingly difficult decision to make. But it is HERS to make, not yours.

Yes who are you to make decisions for others?

Why not allow the child to make its own decision as to wether it lives or not? Well you would but you're obviously anti-choice.

Why not allow others to make a concious decision about wether to have sex or not? That isn't a very liberal thing to say either. I mean to actually admit that someone choose to have sex or not? Next you'll be saying that people would be held accountable for their own choices.

 

[angrybellsprout]

a man is TOTALLY responsible for a womans pregnancy

I know because a man is TOTALLY 100% the only person who makes a choice wether or not to have sex.

I mean duh, everyone knows that women don't make a choice to have sex or not, only males do.

 

[hug-a-tree]

oh come on! If she was raped, yeah I can see why she'd wouldn't want to have the child. If she willingly had sex (and normally you have sex with people you love) and ends up pregnant, why does it have to be a bad thing?

 

[hug-a-tree]

I know because a man is TOTALLY 100% the only person who makes a choice wether or not to have sex.

I mean duh, everyone knows that women don't make a choice to have sex or not, only males do.

YES! It takes two to tango.

 

[angrybellsprout]

Great point, although you have to take the law into account. According to the law, the fetus is not considered a child until it takes a breath outside of the womb. It's a technicality, but it is the law, therefore it is not murdering children.

But I must say I agree with everything else you said, I won't call you a troll anymore.

What law would that be?

The unconstitutional laws written by the judiciary despite the Constitution giving the rights to write law to the legislature? Or the unconstitutional laws written by the judiciary despite the Constitution given the states the right to adress all issues not specifically enumerated within said document?

or the laws written in states such as california where you are charged for double homecide if you murder a woman who is pregnant?

still dont get why scott peterson didn't just claim that he gave laci an abortion and that he simply did some mal practice and that no murder took place...

 

[leopold]

I know because a man is TOTALLY 100% the only person who makes a choice wether or not to have sex.

I mean duh, everyone knows that women don't make a choice to have sex or not, only males do.

so saying that, do you believe it fair to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want?

 

[angrybellsprout]

yeah, it WAS lame
but not near as lame as forceing a woman to have a child she doesn't want.

She obviously wanted to make that child, but we wouldn't want to actually hold anyone accountable for their concious choices, I mean that violates the core laws of liberal land...

 

[leopold]

She obviously wanted to make that child, but we wouldn't want to actually hold anyone accountable for their concious choices, I mean that violates the core laws of liberal land...

but you just said a man was responsible for a womans pregnancy

edit
you didn't say that but you agreed with it

 

[angrybellsprout]

but you just said a man was responsible for a womans pregnancy

I'm wondering if you ever made it past elementry school, as most language arts circulums require that you learn about certian things at a fairly young age.

Can anyone else guess what literary devices those could be?

 

[leopold]

I'm wondering if you ever made it past elementry school, as most language arts circulums require that you learn about certian things at a fairly young age.

Can anyone else guess what literary devices those could be?

i wonder if you can answer a question

 

[hug-a-tree]

He was being sarcastic. It's her responsiblty as much as his.