Against Abortions mean you are Pro-Life

Why are "pro-choicers" all for controlling private businesses to try to give someone else "rights", but when it comes to abortion sing a very different tune?

 

Do not blame me for your lack of ability to use technically correct English and logical failure.

You claim that "life" begins at conception. If life begin's at conception then it can not exist prior to that.

You claim this by claiming "Life begins at conception". If a sperm is "alive" then obviously life exists prior to conception. Duh.

 

Yawn, more rubbish from the resident rubbish expert. Still spouting the refuted fanatasy that abortion leads to guilt, depression and suicide.

What moral high ground, the one that allows you to force others to bend to your ideology especially pregnant women that you want to force to remian pregnant . .some moral high ground you have there.

Let me know when you start advocating for an end to executions, self-defence and war until then you have no moral standing at all.

 

Complete and utter balony, does the "sleeping" child injure the life support like the fetus does to a pregnant woman?

 

No, all Pro-choicers are for choice in abortion issues......that is the ONLY thing Pro-Choice is about....


we all do not like strawberry ice cream or the color blue and we're not all Democrats and we're not all women and we're not all white and we're not all black and we all do not support Clinton and we all do not support Trump and we don't drive the same cars.....we Pro-Choice people believe in women's right to choose ...that is all it refers to ......nothing else

 

That is the biggest joke of the forum, you have been presented with facts and reasoning numeropus times and every time your response is some random squeak about liberal pro-abortions making things up or you simply ignore it . .want examples, I have plenty bookmarked.

 

What a load of BS.

 

So you would have supported the continuation of "Jim Crow"?

- - - Updated - - -

Why do people who claim they want "smaller Government"....want it so small it can fit in a uterus?



- - - Updated - - -

Really, not that surprising.....controlling racial minorities, would walk hand-in-hand with the average Rightwinger's desire to control women.

Basically, their "1950s Utopia" ideal where only white, straight males ran everything.

 

If I was on the court I wouldn't have tried to interfere with a matter that really should have been left up to the States. The Fourteenth Amendment says equal protection of the law, not that groups cannot be separately treated by the law.

The Supreme Court shouldn't have been trying to make up Constitutional protections that do not exist... much like they did later when they tried to claim the Constitution gave women a right to abortion.

 

Section 1 - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They did exactly the same with the 2nd Amendment.

 

Answer my question directly....

You would have supported the continuation of "Jim Crow" Laws? Yes or No?

 

Maybe they only partially deserve it. See, there's a difference.

I may not support having women executed; But if one happens to die while trying to illegally commit her terrible act in secret, well, it's not quite as bad as a normal innocent women dying, now is it?
Not saying it's something to celebrate, but it does to some degree mitigate the argument that abortion needs to be legal.

 

Why not?

Don't you believe that abortion is "murder"? How would you punish a murderer?

 

Because it's a liability.

Here, let me try to explain:
Inviting someone into your house is not a crime. Keeping a savage wild lion in your house is not a crime. But if you invite a guest into your house you do not necessarily have the right to open the cage door and let the lion roam free in your house. You can be held legally liable.
Same thing with pregnancy. A woman can engage in sex, but if she does so she assumes certain legal liabilities. She cannot open the door to the lion cage, so to speak. If she had not invited the guest into her house (I bet you can guess who that would be ), she would be free to do as she pleased, she could have her uterus sucked out as many times as she wanted to. But she engaged in one act that now obligates her not to do something else.

I can draw different analogies if you want. A doctor is under no obligation to treat you. But, if the doctor offers to perform surgery on you and opens you up, he can't just walk away from the operating table. If he decides to walk away, he can be held legally liable. He is not off the hook until the surgery is over. Even if no contract was signed and no money was exchanged.

Or once again, if you pick up an old lady in your car and offer to drive her home, you can't just suddenly change your mind halfway through the drive and kick her out by the side of a cornfield out in the middle of nowhere.

 

Your last example is no surprise considering how little you respect women.


You : "" A woman can engage in sex, but if she does so she assumes certain legal liabilities""


WHAT legal liabilities????


There are laws on women having sex? Where? Quote them, show them .....


Show the law that says women are obligated to have kids? Oh, wait, silly me, I asked you that before and you ran away


You believe that if you invite someone into your house and they start beating the crap out of you you can't retaliate or use self defense or stop the assault in any way, you really believe you have to take it??? How odd.

 

No, but there are laws against killing.
Go back to the examples I gave.
There's no law against letting a lion loose in your house.
There's no law against a surgeon refusing to operate on a patient.
There's no law that says you have to drive an elderly person to their home.
But you could be held legally liable to do all these things if you put yourself into a situation that would end up harming someone else if you do not follow through.

By the time she figures out she's pregnant the woman already has a kid. She's welcome to give it away... after the pregnancy is completed.

Is that how you view pregnancy?

 

Non sequitur.

 

Well apparently 50 states of the United States disagree with you. If you are that in
love with aborting children that you want no laws that restrict it, then by all means,
move to Canada.

We in the United States of America, and some 8 or 9 territories, like to put restrictions
on abortion so that people are not murdering infants in the womb at 40 weeks of gestation.

Some of us believe in our Constitution. It has something called a 10th Amendment. It says
the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the individuals.

- - - Updated - - -

Every abortion if the forced birthing of a fetus which is premature.

 

No, I know that this is difficult for liberals to understand, but thanks to Eisenhower, who
appointed Earl Warren who wrote Brown vs The Board of Education, this decision reversed
a decision that went against the 14th Amendment, it was called Plessy vs Ferguson. Plessy
vs. Ferguson was brought to us by racist KKK justices that were appointed to the courts by
liberal racist democrat presidents. So if you think that the 14th was written to separate black
Americans from white Americans, you might be a democrat.

So Brown vs the Board of Education was not a misinterpretation of the law, it was a strict,
originalist interpretation of the law.

 

The beginning of every human life begins at conception.

If you want to argue that human life begins before conception,
and that sperm cells deserve constitutional protection under
the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, you are welcome to
make that case. I don't think it is well reasoned or logical.

 

If I have to qualify every sentence by stating "without due process of law"
it would be too tedious and laborious. Please excuse me if I forget that
not all people are capable of making reasonable assumptions.

 

I should 've known that a total lack of ability to understand pregnancy, abortion, and child birth would color your "answer"....


....and still no proof that women are forced to abort......do you really think if you whine it over and over again it may be true?

 

I can provide you with many testimonials on video of women who will tell you
that they were forced to have abortions, right here, in the United States of
America! How many do you want to see? Each post you respond to, I will
gladly post another woman attesting to the fact that she was forced to have
an abortion.

[video=youtube;E6bQ-SI58EY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6bQ-SI58EY[/video]

 

First you say "life begins at conception" now you have change your claim to "Human life begins at conception"

I started with stating that the anti-aborts can not seem to not use obfuscative and disingenuous language and you are now proving my original point.

What is it you are trying to say "Life" or "Human Life" ? Can you not make up your mind or did you not think there was a difference, or are you just ignorant of the main arguments in the debate in general ?

Why would I make such a dumb argument. If you think this argument is not logical then quit making it

You are the one that has made the silly argument that all human life is deserving of protection.