Pro-Choice...give me a break

[tryreading]

I don't know how to use the quote thing correctly so I won't use it.

Click on the 'quote' button at the bottom of a post, then write your message below the quote in the resulting window.

 

[Kelzie]

Click on the 'quote' button at the bottom of a post, then write your message below the quote in the resulting window.

Ha too late! :mrgreen:

 

[tryreading]

Ha too late! :mrgreen:

I was too slow. But more concise. I win.

 

[Kelzie]

I was too slow. But more concise. I win.

Yeah but I was more thorough. Is that how you spell that? Doesn't look right...maybe it's thurough...no that's definitely not right.

 

[tryreading]

Yeah but I was more thorough. Is that how you spell that? Doesn't look right...maybe it's thurough...no that's definitely not right.

Thoreau is correct. He wrote that book when he lived by the pond. I had to quit reading it halfway through because some of his questions were way too piercing. Hope to finish it someday.

 

[ngdawg]

Wow..talk about Threadjack!:mrgreen:

 

[Kelzie]

Thoreau is correct. He wrote that book when he lived by the pond. I had to quit reading it halfway through because some of his questions were way too piercing. Hope to finish it someday.

Ha ha ha. :lol:

 

[Kelzie]

Wow..talk about Threadjack!:mrgreen:

tryreading started it.

 

[George_Washington]

If abortion was illegal would it stop it completely, absolutely not. The result would be back alley abortion performed with a instruments like a coathanger that could kill both girl and baby.

congradulations on your pregnancy!:mrgreen:

OK if they're just going to do it anyway, than why do we even bother to outlaw things in the first place? Why isn't the same with murder, theft, etc. Someone could also say that people are going to kill anyway, so might as well make murder legal.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

For one, there is no baby until birth, so your argument doesn't make sense.

Whatever the term is, I am merely asking questions so far, not making arguments.

Secondly, it doesn't matter, as the REAL issue is whether the woman is allowed to control her own body or not; that is so regardless of the "recipient." The status of the fetus is completely irrelevant, it can be a person 5 times over and still it doesn't have the right to her bodily resources against her will.

So if a full grown infant (for the sake of argument) has inside a woman's body and it was using her resources she would have to right to get rid of it, even if it meant killing it?

I don't mean to sound like I'm debating yet, I'm trying to find the extent of pro-choice reasoning.

 

[Kelzie]

Whatever the term is, I am merely asking questions so far, not making arguments.

So if a full grown infant (for the sake of argument) has inside a woman's body and it was using her resources she would have to right to get rid of it, even if it meant killing it?

I don't mean to sound like I'm debating yet, I'm trying to find the extent of pro-choice reasoning.

That is such a weird hypothetical question. Anyway, here's my answer, can't say it's the same as the rest of the pro-choicers. If a baby can live outside of the womb, and the women wants an abortion, labor should be induced and it should be given up for adoption.

 

[FreeMason]

If abortion was illegal would it stop it completely, absolutely not. The result would be back alley abortion performed with a instruments like a coathanger that could kill both girl and baby.

congradulations on your pregnancy!:mrgreen:

Yeah, and illegalizing Murder doesn't stop that either, so let's make it legal so it can be done neatly and cleanly without any stressful "hiding" in the shadows.

And, more towards Kelzie...I choose to kill someone else (like your mom or sister whatever), it's none of your business, now bugger off.

 

[FreeMason]

And to that guy's weird question...

I think a better example would be some retard...who is dependent upon someone else for life...

We should just get rid of their misery like the Nazis did.

 

[Kelzie]

Yeah, and illegalizing Murder doesn't stop that either, so let's make it legal so it can be done neatly and cleanly without any stressful "hiding" in the shadows.

And, more towards Kelzie...I choose to kill someone else (like your mom or sister whatever), it's none of your business, now bugger off.

Both my mom and my sister can live independent of another person's body. Now you bugger off.

 

[ngdawg]

That is such a weird hypothetical question. Anyway, here's my answer, can't say it's the same as the rest of the pro-choicers. If a baby can live outside of the womb, and the women wants an abortion, labor should be induced and it should be given up for adoption.

That is basically the general stance. But more to the point, it's about choice...no one goes promoting abortion, but the reproductive choices of women as they are the ones who are the bearers.

 

[FreeMason]

Both my mom and my sister can live independent of another person's body. Now you bugger off.

It's none of your business who I kill...they probably mooch off my tax money anwyay...thus they are a parasite.

 

[FreeMason]

That is basically the general stance. But more to the point, it's about choice...no one goes promoting abortion, but the reproductive choices of women as they are the ones who are the bearers.

That's false.

The founder of Planned Parenthood, also an avid Abortionist, promoted the Abortion of Blacks as a means to exterminate that race, she was also an avid Nazi supporter.

 

[tryreading]

So if a full grown infant (for the sake of argument) has inside a woman's body and it was using her resources she would have to right to get rid of it, even if it meant killing it?

I don't mean to sound like I'm debating yet, I'm trying to find the extent of pro-choice reasoning.

You're confusing the issue. I'm not sure what a full grown infant is, but nothing in a woman's belly is accurately described that way. But if you are talking about a fetus, she can kill it. Unless you stop her.

The gist of the reasoning is, in my opinion, that you cannot force a woman to grow another human being in her belly if she doesn't want to.

You personally can control abortion by not ejaculating into a woman's vagina, if you are a man. If you are a woman, don't let a man ejaculate into your vagina. But you can't control it by forcing a woman to carry a fertilized egg to birth.

 

[Kelzie]

It's none of your business who I kill...they probably mooch off my tax money anwyay...thus they are a parasite.

I don't know what point you are trying to make, but it's not a good one. If you're trying to be cute, I don't appreciate people calling my family parasites.

 

[tryreading]

That is such a weird hypothetical question. Anyway, here's my answer, can't say it's the same as the rest of the pro-choicers. If a baby can live outside of the womb, and the women wants an abortion, labor should be induced and it should be given up for adoption.

But she wants an abortion, not labor. This implies that the woman should be forced. This is removing her reproductive rights.

 

[ngdawg]

That's false.

The founder of Planned Parenthood, also an avid Abortionist, promoted the Abortion of Blacks as a means to exterminate that race, she was also an avid Nazi supporter.

Your point? Margaret Sanger wasn't part of RvW or had anything to do with the woman's right to choose...
That's like arguing Thomas Jefferson was responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation because he didn't like slavery.

 

[steen]

Do you completely deny the existence of the fetus?

Not at all. I never even hinted that. What gave you that idea?

And the woman having the ability to use or not use her resources at her dicresion are important but can you get rid of the "entity" inside of her without harming it?

not before 3rd trimester, certainly.

Obviously you can't because you didn't answer my question the first time I asked.

Huh?

If you don't care what other people do with their lives and the lives around them( giving them the choice to do whatever the #@%$ they want) then you are accepting it as right. As an example and simply as an example: I assume you opposed Hitler. You probably opposed him because of his methodical killing of Jews and anyone who opposed him. I am not referencing this as to the killing so much as the not accepting it as right. You didn't agree with his extermination of a people and so you opposed him you didn't just sit by and say "well I am all for his ability to choose, I mean they are his resources". And while Hitler is a separate and more complicated topic the underlying message that I referenced it for exist so don't dance around my posts by twisting the minor imperfections of my posts to throw focus from the topic.

Ah, but Hitler was assaulting sensate, sentient persons.

And as to the post of yours that soon followed: when I posted that was entirely and completely sarcastic. I was making fun of him for avoiding the question. The second thing you quoted in the same post you said it was up to her and I'm sorry I should have been more specific. In that particulair scenario I assumed that you were either the man and/or the woman involved and again not saying so was my fault. And as to the third thing that you quoted: The woman is obviously having an abortion for some reason whether it be financial, inconvience, lazziness, or whatever; the abortion is only as responsible as making sure that you get to the doctor in time to have your kidney removed.

It is irrelevant. She has no duty to provide her bodily resources to save a life. You don't, and si neither should you, unless you admit the prolofe position as hypocritical.

Having a kid is much more responsibility and it is her responsibility to take care of the kid or at least not burden it with such a crapy mother by giving it to an orphanage, killing it should never be an option.

but then, nobody are talking about killing kids. On the other hand, if she proactively abort the non-sentient, nonm-sensate tissue, then there will never be a child that will suffer.

Therefore if abortion was outlawed and she was forced to have the kid she is not leaving the deciscion to others (it's not even an option).

false. If abortions were outlawed, then others would take control over what she shoudl do with her bodily resources, she will then become enslaved.

So that STILL raise the question of prolife hypocricy until prolifers are willing to make such rules apply to ALL, including the giving of blood or an extra kidney. As I have yet to see prolifers agree to this (except one), the conclusion rmeains that you are happy to place a burden on her but refuse the same burden placed on you. hence, prolifers are hypocrites.

I will restate my belief that I don't think that a potential human should be denied the right to life simply because the woman doesn't like sharing her breakfast with it.

And a potential human being is nothing but tissue, which means that it is irrelevant. the WOAMN is the sentient person; she is the one who gets to decide.

 

[steen]

Whatever the term is, I am merely asking questions so far, not making arguments.

But if your vocabulary doesn't make sense, don't expect meaningful answers.

So if a full grown infant (for the sake of argument) has inside a woman's body

Well, "Infant" lasts till the end of 2 years, so it would ikmediately suffocate in mom's womb, not to mention mom would be seriously injured.

and it was using her resources she would have to right to get rid of it, even if it meant killing it?

She has the right to have it removed from using her body. If this can be done viably, then that can be done.

I don't mean to sound like I'm debating yet, I'm trying to find the extent of pro-choice reasoning.

The reasoning is that NOBODY has the duty to provide their bodily resources against their will, even if it means saving a life. YOU have no such duty, neither does the woman.

 

[FreeMason]

Your point? Margaret Sanger wasn't part of RvW or had anything to do with the woman's right to choose...
That's like arguing Thomas Jefferson was responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation because he didn't like slavery.

Abraham Lincoln's strongest and in fact, only legal argument that Slavery should be abolished, was in fact, the statement written in the Living Law by Thomas Jefferson.

You set yourself up for that one.

Planned Parenthood is a principal factor in allowing Abortion. Margaret Sanger was a strong promoter of such, and did in fact, help it come true.

 

[FreeMason]

I don't know what point you are trying to make, but it's not a good one. If you're trying to be cute, I don't appreciate people calling my family parasites.

What else do you call something that lives off something else?

You think you aren't dependent on other people to live, then go live in the bushes you cavewoman.

The rest of us will prefer to be parasites, at least we aren't barbarians.