So, after all I did not makes such a claim
No ,I did not. Even your post is evidence of what I said, except of course for the lie you injected.Yes, you did.
I did not mis-speak and I did say what I did and you posted a lie.You can claim that you misspoke, if you want to, but you still said what you said.
I can not correct the lie you post.If you didn't mean to say it, feel free to correct it.
No, I did not.
Yes, I said what I said and it is there for anyone to read. You interjected a lie into it in a dishonest attempt to misrepresent what I said.Yes, you did. Words mean things, and you said what you said.
Not at all, I still have the capacity to recognize your lie whereas you do not.Sorry, but you're just factually at odds with reality right now.
Yes, I said what I said and it is there for anyone to read.
| Moderator's Warning: |
Trees or not people and we have a right to life. Trees do not.
No they don't. To the best of my knowledge no infant has ever committed a crime that is punishable by death in America.
The is not true, but even if it was, it doesn't change anything. You are just babbling on with no direction.
I find it very disturbing that you think unborn humans have no value.
Reductio ad absurdum...You have taken what I have said and applied absurd definitions that are not valid for the purposes of making your case. A case, I might ad, that hinged on the definition of one word in one post. Further, you now imply that children, for want of food, are now guilty of a crime that is punishable by death. Combine that with your assertion that prebirth humans have no value and we start to paint a very disturbing picture. Are you sure this is the line of reasoning you meant to take?
:lamoRead John 4:26 and learn.
Odd that you would say that. There are lots of people, very well educated people that very sincerely believe abortion to be murder; mass murder, in fact. The problem for the logic that contradicts this is that it requires introducing the hypothesis that not all humans are human.
I knew all that. But that does not change anything. You seem to think that court decisions, power that be or majorities influence ethical value. By that standard the mass murders in history were ethically fine. The implications of the ethics you seem to postulate would probably scare you.
JoG nailed it. If you take the risk you assume the consequences. The rest is just you trying to impose beliefs on me so you can dismiss my argument without merit.
Who is imposing anything on you?
Yes, people who have sex may have to face consequences. I dont think anyone disagrees with that.
And if a woman gets pregnant, she has NO way to escape those consequences. This is all she has:
--give birth
--have a miscarriage
--have an abortion
--die during childbirth or pregnancy.
And she can die or face permanent harm from the first 3 too. So what is she 'avoiding?' What, are some of those not enough 'punishment' for her? Yeah, ya know, some women want to give birth! All consequences are not negative. It just seems like there are people that 'want' them to be.
So I see nowhere where ANY belief is being imposed on you.
Are you saying that the SCOTUS decision in Roe vs Wade was/is unethical? How so? I hope you will consider the 'real life' affects on women's rights if abortion was made illegal....the implications that are clear if the govt must take responsibility for making sure pregnant women stay pregnant, there will be gross infringements on their rights. Including their right to life, since every year in the US, 86,000 women die, nearly die, or have longterm health damage (like kidney failure, aneurysms, strokes) from pregnancy and childbirth.
And of course these are not the ones resolved by therapeutic abortions (those done to save a woman's life). If that were the case, none or only some of those 86,000 would have occurred.
No, not all death and damage can be predicted or prevented. So the govt would be forcing women to take those significant risks against their will.
Thoughts?
Ok, I ran out of time to finish my thought. But if you do the math, nearly every woman will have contraception fail at some point in her life.
.
Let's see THAT statistic.
I am now 54....never been pregnant. Was sexually active (still am :mrgreen: but no longer fertile...score!!!!) my entire adult life including a 13 year live-in relationship where we definitely had more sex than the average marriage (from what I read.)
I couldnt take the Pill because of my blood pressure. I had to use other methods and I never ever had unprotected sex in my life. It was a PIA sometimes certainly but I still never got pregnant. I know a couple of other women the same, except they were able to take the Pill.
So just in my experience (myself and others)....you are wrong so I'd like to see something more to back up that statement.
It's also kinda sad that you think women should have to forego enjoying sex just because you dont believe they should take the risks of birth control and possibly getting pregnant. Sorry Charlie, we are not giving up the good things in life just because you choose to accord the unborn with rights.
I think this is the more important 'takeaway' from your post about the efficacy of bc. It's not remotely realistic but IMO punitive and judgemental.
1.)I would not presume to be the authority on ethics to say, but by traditional ethics and in the opinion of well trained minds specialized in ethics abortion is rather unethical.
2.)Also we have a human rights based legal system that derives legitimacy from those rights.
3.) Abortion is the killing of a human being.
I would not presume to be the authority on ethics to say, but by traditional ethics and in the opinion of well trained minds specialized in ethics abortion is rather unethical. Also we have a human rights based legal system that derives legitimacy from those rights. Abortion is the killing of a human being.
It's kind of sad that you think women should risk their health and their lives for the sake of getting off with men who they don't want to have children with.
Not only that, but the way it exists in this country...completely un regulated, reporting voluntary where it exists at all, no oversight...it's a disgraceful example of a society that thinks that not only are the babies of poor and minority women worthless...but the women themselves are. The women aren't important enough to rate doctors in good standing, or any sort of enforced standards of operations....they are lied to about the *safety* of abortion, and taught from the cradle that if they have children except when they've PLANNED for them, then those children are a burden, subhuman, and should be killed.
It's disgusting. And they claim they are working on BEHALF of women. All they have done is enable the butchers and the sex trade to abuse these women even more effectively than they already did.
what country are you speaking of? not the US lol
not only are there regs here but many middle class have abortions
and abortions have nothing to do with thinking anything is worthless
sorry those starwmen dont cut it
lol where does this info come from
1.) just an opinion and a meaningless one
2.) actually choice with limits is closer to respecting human rights than anythign else LMAO Thier are TWO lives in the equation and ignoring one or leaning towards one negates any human rights argument
it is impossible to use human rights as a based for anybody that is for/mostly for bannings or unlimited abortion. This fact will simply not change.
Its impossible to have equal rights on this matter but if one cares about them or human rights the only thing close is something in the middle.
Now people are free to feel how they want but they cant be for/mostly for, bannings or unlimited abortion and use human rights, its factually impossible for them to apply unless one life is ignored.
3.) factually false the way you stated it.
So..how did those regulations serve the women who were butchered and killed at Gosnell's?
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?