That's quite a word salad. Did you learn that from the Harris campaign?Define "potential." Potential for what? Potential is not the same as "actual" and nothing more than wishful thinking-hardly a solid basis to forcefully alter a gestator's actual life and their own "Potential."
that so called lump of fetal tissue if carried to term becomes an infant with a potential lifetime of decades. Is that too hard to work out?And yes, it is a lump of fetal tissue. That's simple biology, but also irrelevant. It seems the only argument you can make is an appeal to emotion, which isn't even am argument.
<
<<<=== “They let you do it if you’re a star. You can do anything.” - Donald Felonious Trump
<
Of course. Why should the government ever have anything to say about it at all?
It is no one's business beyonr the woman involved - and whoever she chooses to be involved. The government should NOT be involved at all.
Woudl you support the government getting involved in determining what you do with your sperm?
IIs it too complicated for you? I see you cannot refute it.That's quite a word salad. Did you learn that from the Harris campaign?
So what? That doesn't answer the questions, " Potential" for what? Why should something as ambiguous as "potential" be a basis, legal or otherwise, to restrict someone's choice and bodily autonomy?that so called lump of fetal tissue if carried to term becomes an infant with a potential lifetime of decades. Is that too hard to work out?
In other words, you wish to approve the motivation of the woman before allowing her an abortion. If you approve, she can have her abortion. If not, she has that option removed. It's not about the sanctity of life. It's not about some moral high ground. It is about controlling the woman.You all sure do like to read words into a discussion out of thin air, lol. Not at all, I'm saying and now need to repeat it once again for the slower or those who cannot keep up that abortion should NOT be used for some excuses or reasons, matters not if they believe that unborn is her actual body, it's not to be used as a birth control alternative.
Yet you are doing exactly that. Pretending you aren't isn't helping your cause.We are not trying to control women...
The "unborn" are destroyed regularly as a normal part of our biology.\We are trying to protect the life of the unborn...
Yes, once born. And once they are born, the government considers them people - citizens. You should make some effort to be concerned about those lives - people who actually exist.... and cease the movement they are nothing but to be killed out of being unwanted, needed, or some imagined threat to society. They are innocent children, once born.
The government shouldn't be involved at all.Oh, but the government is heavily involved in abortion......don't you remember the meltdown of Roe vs Wade being returned back to the States. Pro-abortion advocates went ballistic, sad it's not in the federal governments' hands anymore.
You are making no sense whatsover.IIs it too complicated for you? I see you cannot refute it.
So what? That doesn't answer the questions, " Potential" for what? Why should something as ambiguous as "potential" be a basis, legal or otherwise, to restrict someone's choice and bodily autonomy?
Potential is not the same as "actual" and nothing more than wishful thinking-hardly a solid basis to forcefully alter a gestator's actual life and their own "Potential."
In other words, you wish to approve the motivation of the woman before allowing her an abortion. If you approve, she can have her abortion. If not, she has that option removed. It's not about the sanctity of life. It's not about some moral high ground. It is about controlling the woman.
Hmmm. I thought it made perfect sense. You said;You are making no sense whatsover.
Your own words accuse you. You have stated it is the motivation of the woman that must be considered. If the motive is met with approval, she has your blessing to kill the baby. If not, the baby gets to live.But you sure do love taking a high moral ground position by accusing me of wanting to control women, lol......that's rather hypocritical, imo. You open a door for the woman to be rid of the pregnancy to remove yourself from responsibility. It looks as if you have it backwards.
I cannot dumb it down any further for you. If you do not understand, that is your (unique) problem, not mine.You are making no sense whatsover.
Your restriction that health be the only reason is anothingmore than another example of a man thinking he has the right to tell women what they can do with their bodies. Do not try an pass your misogynistic crap off as if you are doing women a favour.Wtf are you talking about? Please pay more attention to the postings of those you respond before posting such nonsense. Anyone with a little sense and reading comprehension knows by now that I support abortion if the mothers or babies health are in danger, then it's a medical procedure to save the life of the woman. I do not support abortion out of convenience or as a measure of birth control.
The above post solely represents a severe lack of knowledge.
I'm simply assessing your motives....while it seems I'm clearly hitting my mark.Why are you twisting my words? I was clear as a bell in saying that a woman who has been raped against her will has a right to abortion. There's no need to add or subtract from that simple statement. Birth control even if used correctly 100% of the time can still fail to protect from pregnancy. I would think this is a given, seeing how it's common knowledge. Do I have to spell everything out to you and why do I have to keep repeating myself?
Yes. Frankly, her reasons for an abortion is of no concern nor business of mine nor anyone else not involved with her situation.I'm sure it would widen the accusation of rape tenfold if it could get them an abortion from only having unprotected sex. So, in this your solution would be to let them have an abortion without reason or excuse, yes?
There is no "false pretense" to be had, the unborn have no inherent right-to-life. You haven't sufficiently demonstrated why the unborn must be granted such rights at the expense of the mother's. Your objections are prescriptive in nature rather than objectively descriptive.Because I simply do not believe in the killing of innocent future life because of the false pretense they are not persons without rights, so it's perfectly alright to end its life.
Projection of potential greatness is no more relevant than a projection of its opposite. A complete waste of effort.Many great people have arisen from severe poverty and lifelong hardships being born into 'not so good' families or circumstances and removing these future persons from society would diminish the greatness of our nation.....there is always light at the end of the tunnel. It has been living through these hard-life experiences which helped and caused these great persons to spring forth. Simply to kill them like they are garbage to be throwed away and forgotten is a true sign of a degraded society, imo.
Yet you are doing exactly that. Pretending you aren't isn't helping your cause.
How about this; if you think abortion is a bad thing, don't have one.
You are male? Then why teh hell are you even weighing in? Let the woman make her own decisions. Its called personal lliberty.
The "unborn" are destroyed regularly as a normal part of our biology.
Why are you ok with them being 'killed"?
Why does your concern over this "life" only exist when you can us it to justify interfering with someone else's life and personal decisions?
I have a solution;
All males should undergo a government mandated reversible sterilization until they are fully capable and willing to support a child - then be required to comply.
You would support that, yes?
It would absolutely eliminate a great number of abortions. Your big issue goes away. All good? You would agree with that, surely?
No?
Ask yourself why you wouldn't.
Yes, once born. And once they are born, the government considers them people - citizens. You should make some effort to be concerned about those lives - people who actually exist.
That sounds like a 'you' problem. Why should anyone else have your problems, especially by legal force?You're mad because I want to protect those whom you have no respect or care or even exist......well that breaks my heart.
Your own words accuse you. You have stated it is the motivation of the woman that must be considered. If the motive is met with approval, she has your blessing to kill the baby. If not, the baby gets to live.
If that does not meet the definition of controlling, nothing does.
Thats your opinion, but you don't even have a uterus. You offer no real basis for that idea, and ytiou8 suggest that thsi imaginary right supercedes a woman's rights.Other than rape or medical reasons to save her life, that unborn child has the right to life, imo.
You know little about what I feel. Assuming that anyone contemplates such a decision "on a whim" is condescending at best, and degrading and obnoxious. You are wholly ignorant of what women may or may not be dealing with at that point in time.To you, it's nothing with no rights whatsoever to be killed on a whim.
The problem is actually sperm. I just started another thread that offers a solution.The problem lies in educating and pre-pregnancy birth control.
Not at all. It is very much still 'her body". The idea that the government should be making decisions about her body is an appalling attack on personal liberty.Another reason is scientific.....did you know an unborn has their own dna and a different circulatory blood supply from the maternal circulatory blood supply, as there are two, the maternal and fetal blood circulatory systems. Even though in the early states the unborn is entirely dependent upon the mother, it has these things mentioned with a completely separate circulatory blood system. Kind of makes the slogan, "my body, my choice" a thing of the past.
?Because the open door to freely without guilt or conscious care to kill an unborn child might one day cause someone in my family or friends family go down that road.....they could've have been by friend.
But you don't . You ONLY want to "protect those" where you can override someone else's personal liberty.You're mad because I want to protect those whom you have no respect or care or even exist......well that breaks my heart.
Did I say that?
Lol, whatever. My point stands......the 14th amendment and the phrase 'my body, my choice' does not cut it.
She was raped against her will or of a medical condition which the continuance of the pregnancy would kill the mother are motivations which must meet my personal approval, lol. Nothing but a lame, blame copout. You have run out of material and are just farting crap into the air.
I pointed out the hypocricy of that position too. No surprise it was ignored. He seems to think his opinions whould matter or weigh more than actual Constitutional law, likely because feelings.Why is it acceptable to "murder a baby" if the mother was raped? Even as a compromise, please explain that?
The 14th Amendment speaks nothing of the unborn. It's speaking during the time after the Civil War to heal the nation and give liberties to those oppressed. They're similar to trinitarians who read false doctrine into the text. Then their slogan, "my body, my choice" is an oxymoron even in their false rendering of the 14th amendment.
Taking language out of the 14th amendment which was written to give rights to slaves post civil war then placing them falsely upon the unborn is the perfect example of "out of context". T
he racists of that time didn't give them any rights whatsoever, even not thinking they were human beings, hence the language of the 14th amendment.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, albeit exempts abortion, still the recognition is there.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Then of course section c here shows the error of using their 2nd 'go to' law for support......does it need explanation? Just two sections later in the same context proves their 'out of context' error.
Although exempting abortion, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 gives the unborn legal rights. Any person including the mother does hurts or kills that unborn child, exempting abortion, they will answer to the authorities with possible imprisonment. They do have some rights and are not some type of nonhuman dehumanized blob that can be killed at any time such nonsense.
The billions and billions of women who have suffered through pregnancy and proudly raised families might tend to disagree with your hypothesis, lol.
Can women make this choice within the first trimester? Why should it be permitted beyond this time frame unless there's medical issues?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?