You seeking to enslave women, to take away their basic human right to control their own bodies, THAT is disgusting.KevinWan said:And to justify abortion just for their 'use,' or what have you, in science is disgusting.
steen said:You seeking to enslave women, to take away their basic human right to control their own bodies, THAT is disgusting.
Its disgusting that you want to cover up the value of a woman as an individual being rather than a slave to your theocratic misogynism as "right to life." Thats disgusting...KevinWan said:Its disgusting that you want to cover up the value of a life as "control over a woman's body." Thats disgusting...
steen said:Its disgusting that you want to cover up the value of a woman as an individual being rather than a slave to your theocratic misogynism as "right to life." Thats disgusting...
steen said:You seeking to enslave women, to take away their basic human right to control their own bodies, THAT is disgusting.
It is the choice of the one whose body is actually carrying the pregnancy, and whose bodily resources is sustaining it.V.I. Lenin said:Why is it purely the woman's choice? Did she fertilize the egg on her own?
But the oppression of the woman is, for your religious beliefs of her as a second-class citizen.KevinWan said:I don't think life is purely a theocratic subject...
Yup. ALmost 4 bill years ago.Life existed before any religion did.
Yes.The woman is an individual,
Nope. That aside, it is not a "child" until birth, your revisionist linguistics none withstanding, and she has no responsibilities until birth.and so is the child which she bears responsibility over...
It has no right ot life.to give it its right to life.
Anyone who seeks to take control over her body and decide for her what to use her bodily resources for, yes absolutely.Peralin said:Oh, yeah, steen. Everyone wants to enslave women, don't they?
Nope, you are wrong.Anyone who disagrees with you about abortion, at least. Am I right?
Nope.Do you generalize about EVERYONE who disagrees with you?
They shouldn't. They shoul;d have the same duties regarding giving of their bodily resources as you do.BTW, everyone is enslaved by the law. Women want to be treated as equals, so why should they be exempt?
steen said:Anyone who seeks to take control over her body and decide for her what to use her bodily resources for, yes absolutely.
Nope, you are wrong.
Nope.
They shouldn't. They shoul;d have the same duties regarding giving of their bodily resources as you do.
BUT WAIT!!!:shock: YOU can't be forced to give of your bodily resources against your will. YOU can't legally be strapped down and have a pint of blood extracted over 15 minutes unless you volunteer to do so.
So you do NOT want women to be treated as equal, you want them to be treated like LESS of a person than you are. YOU want the right to refuse your bodily resources for others, yet you hypocritically demand that the pregnant women be forced to do just that. So your claim that you want the woman treated as "equals" was just a big fat lie, then?
steen said:But the oppression of the woman is, for your religious beliefs of her as a second-class citizen.
steen said:Nope. That aside, it is not a "child" until birth, your revisionist linguistics none withstanding, and she has no responsibilities until birth.
It has no right ot life.
And it was conveniently institutionalized in Christianity by Paul, who comitted a philosophical coup d'etas and used the blossoming religion of Christianity to impose his own misogynistic ideas.KevinWan said:The "oppression" of woman is not purely theocratic. Woman weren't treated equally before any religion existed... Cavemen raped their woman avidly.
There are no responsibilities to an embryo. There are at best some duties to ensure that it is not born with FAS. But there is no responsibility to not abort, f.ex.Maybe its not a child, but it is life before birth. The woman has NO responsibilities before birth??
In which case she wouldn't seek an abortion, and as such, we wouldn't be discussing her actions. So its a red herring. Care to focus on the issue, please?..Thats terribly, terribly wrong. If a woman WANTED her child...
If she choses to bring a child into this world, she owes it the best possible chances. That is completely irrelevant to her decision before birth about whether to abort or not. You are pushing a red herring.she has to take care of herself in order to take care of her baby. She can't get drunk every night, smoke pot, fall down stairs etc. Thats a responsibility.
And before birth also the embryo and the fetus IF SHE ARE SEEKING TO GIVE BIRTH. A moot point regarding abortion.She bears the responsibility to care for her baby.
"lifeless"??? I am trying to find where you found that quote you put in qu=otation marks, and I am not finding it. Nor am I finding anything even closely resembling that in any of my posts. So what point is it you are trying to contradict here? Because it certainly isn't any point that I raised.If its so "lifeless" before birth...
Well, if she seeks an aboprtion, then there will never be a "baby." And as such, no such responsibility.why would she even need to both being careful, in the interests of her baby's LIFE??
Your claim is outright false. Notably, the Declaration of Independence is not a law. It is a statement of intent regarding seeking independence from another country. It is not established law, and whatever pa.rts did not make it into the US Constitution thus solidly was rejected by the Democratic Process.The Declaration of Independence guarantees LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happyness...
Except a kidney patient, or a prisoner on Death Row f.ex. So your claim is false. Could you please restrict yourself to making true statements instead of interspersing so many false ones?All Americans have a right to life.
How about the baby's rights? There are many, many, many ways that a woman can prevent pregnancy, not the least of which is keeping her legs closed. Why are ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT children punished for the moral and/or intellectual shortcomings of the body he or she was cursed to start out in? Can I invite 20 people to a party, discover that there's not enough food for all of them, decide I don't want to put in the effort to cook for the extra guests I am responsible for inviting, and then just kill the excess guests? If murder for my own convenience is wrong, so is abortion. I think there should be a 'point system' where a tramp who gets herself knocked up is permitted one abortion (in the first trimester)= 1 point. If she does it again...=2nd point. 3 points = involuntary sterilization. Rape or incest cases would be exempt. 2nd trimester abortions should result in manslaughter charges against the killer and her accomplice (the "doctor"). Any 3rd trimester abortion should result in murder charges against the killer and her accomplice. The same way that 3 dui's costs you your driver's license, 3 utterly dispassionate murders should cost you your reproducing license. I know, personally, no less than 4 of these murderers. They are ALL spoiled, selfish, promiscuous party girls who killed the child in the name of preserving their physical appearance, or out of selfish concerns for their future time management. Murder is murder, the fact that you justify murder by talking about rights is hypocracy on a biblical scale. If it doesn't bother you to let a doctor reach up in your guts and brutally dismember and remove your OWN CHILD, it shouldn't bother you to let another doctor reach up in your guts and remove the death row you call your ovaries.steen said:It is the choice of the one whose body is actually carrying the pregnancy, and whose bodily resources is sustaining it.
Paul's coup de etat? Please elaborate. I have never heard anyone blame Paul before.steen said:And it was conveniently institutionalized in Christianity by Paul, who comitted a philosophical coup d'etas and used the blossoming religion of Christianity to impose his own misogynistic ideas.
There are no responsibilities to an embryo. There are at best some duties to ensure that it is not born with FAS. But there is no responsibility to not abort, f.ex.
Actually, if the embryo is exposed to alcohol, there is a responsibility to abort in order to avoid bringing up a child suffering the horrendous consequenses and life-long suffering from this
In which case she wouldn't seek an abortion, and as such, we wouldn't be discussing her actions. So its a red herring. Care to focus on the issue, please?
If she choses to bring a child into this world, she owes it the best possible chances. That is completely irrelevant to her decision before birth about whether to abort or not. You are pushing a red herring.
And before birth also the embryo and the fetus IF SHE ARE SEEKING TO GIVE BIRTH. A moot point regarding abortion.
"lifeless"??? I am trying to find where you found that quote you put in qu=otation marks, and I am not finding it. Nor am I finding anything even closely resembling that in any of my posts. So what point is it you are trying to contradict here? Because it certainly isn't any point that I raised.
Well, if she seeks an aboprtion, then there will never be a "baby." And as such, no such responsibility.
Your claim is outright false. Notably, the Declaration of Independence is not a law. It is a statement of intent regarding seeking independence from another country. It is not established law, and whatever pa.rts did not make it into the US Constitution thus solidly was rejected by the Democratic Process.
That aside, your push certainly is to rob women of these proclaimed "rights." That would make your argument hypocritical
So next time you want to claim anything about rights, don't be so silly as to seek your "evidence" from something unrelated to rights, thanks. It then won't waste our time or expose your ignorance of what a law or a right is.
Except a kidney patient, or a prisoner on Death Row f.ex. So your claim is false. Could you please restrict yourself to making true statements instead of interspersing so many false ones?
I blame Paul all the time, for everything from homophobia to my dog walking slow cause some racoon came by the night before and she has to smell the track.thoracle said:Paul's coup de etat? Please elaborate. I have never heard anyone blame Paul before.
V.I. Lenin said:Things are disgusting. Thats disgusting.
Digusting.
:mrgreen:
Why is it purely the woman's choice? Did she fertilize the egg on her own?
KevinWan said:Its disgusting that you want to cover up the value of a life as "control over a woman's body." Thats disgusting...
thoracle said:How about the baby's rights? There are many, many, many ways that a woman can prevent pregnancy, not the least of which is keeping her legs closed. Why are ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT children punished for the moral and/or intellectual shortcomings of the body he or she was cursed to start out in? Can I invite 20 people to a party, discover that there's not enough food for all of them, decide I don't want to put in the effort to cook for the extra guests I am responsible for inviting, and then just kill the excess guests? If murder for my own convenience is wrong, so is abortion. I think there should be a 'point system' where a tramp who gets herself knocked up is permitted one abortion (in the first trimester)= 1 point. If she does it again...=2nd point. 3 points = involuntary sterilization. Rape or incest cases would be exempt. 2nd trimester abortions should result in manslaughter charges against the killer and her accomplice (the "doctor"). Any 3rd trimester abortion should result in murder charges against the killer and her accomplice. The same way that 3 dui's costs you your driver's license, 3 utterly dispassionate murders should cost you your reproducing license. I know, personally, no less than 4 of these murderers. They are ALL spoiled, selfish, promiscuous party girls who killed the child in the name of preserving their physical appearance, or out of selfish concerns for their future time management. Murder is murder, the fact that you justify murder by talking about rights is hypocracy on a biblical scale. If it doesn't bother you to let a doctor reach up in your guts and brutally dismember and remove your OWN CHILD, it shouldn't bother you to let another doctor reach up in your guts and remove the death row you call your ovaries.
Navy Pride said:This thread is disgusting.........
Born Again? haha. I am not a religious person. If a zygote and a fetus are not a child, tell me the way a child is formed? I was really hoping for an intelligent attempt at a legitimate defense of the murder of children, and as usual, got the standard 'Me, me, me and me' heartless, cold, weak-bash-the-weaker, 'the-growing-life-is-not-alive', line of bs. Your name fits you. See if you can search the vast group of occasionally intelligent baby-killers and find a real answer to the question. I think every non-rape, non-incest abortion lover hates themselves and their lives, and deep down wishes they had been aborted. So do I. How about we legalize aborting the mother? Why should she be allowed to act like an irresponsible slut, again and again, and then murder the child(ren) because of her failings? Why not allow people to say an infant is not a person, and kill them at will? A toddler? A kindergartener? How about we say you're not a person until you can vote, and can therefore be killed on the whim of your parent at any time before you are 18? We should allow abortion once, followed by summary sterilization. Then everyone is happy. The baby is dead(pro-choice cheer!), and the heartless female, with no maternal instinct, never has to worry about a new life causing her to get one? Every person who believes it is ok to murder another human being, should begin with the human in the mirror. Then everybody would REALLY be happy. I, as I said, am not a religious person, but I really hope that the bible is true, and that Pete gets the true answer at the gates, and that ALL those who snuffed out life like popping a pimple, burn.sissy-boy said:
A fetus is not a child, and neither is a zygote. Instead of being 'Born Again' why don't you just GROW UP?!
steen said:Actually, if the embryo is exposed to alcohol, there is a responsibility to abort in order to avoid bringing up a child suffering the horrendous consequenses and life-long suffering from this
In which case she wouldn't seek an abortion, and as such, we wouldn't be discussing her actions. So its a red herring. Care to focus on the issue, please?
steen said:If she choses to bring a child into this world, she owes it the best possible chances. That is completely irrelevant to her decision before birth about whether to abort or not. You are pushing a red herring.
steen said:Your claim is outright false. Notably, the Declaration of Independence is not a law. It is a statement of intent regarding seeking independence from another country. It is not established law, and whatever pa.rts did not make it into the US Constitution thus solidly was rejected by the Democratic Process.
steen said:So next time you want to claim anything about rights, don't be so silly as to seek your "evidence" from something unrelated to rights, thanks. It then won't waste our time or expose your ignorance of what a law or a right is.
Except a kidney patient, or a prisoner on Death Row f.ex. So your claim is false. Could you please restrict yourself to making true statements instead of interspersing so many false ones?