do you not see the hypocrisy in your comments? according to you a fetus isnt a person until like 30 months or all the way up to birth. yet now you are saying its a baby and person this whole time?
obviously not. having and raising a child is the single greatest joy anyone can accomplish in their lifetime. no matter what anyone says, that is the truth. no one should be torn from their child. and this sick abortion movement is destroying that bond from the inside out. scaring women into getting abortions, making them believe their own child is just a devil spawn from satan, and the image of this "cool" caviler lifestyle with no strings attached. its rotting us from the inside out, and is destroying the single-most greatest joy anyone could even have in their lifetime.
But that is what you want. After you force a woman to complete a 9 month pregnancy and childbirth (which requires a year of recovery for her body to return to normal), you would force her to choose a lifetime commitment, or adoption. Who do you think you are to attempt to determine the life choices of others? That is a blatant lie. Why must the sick anti-abortion movement resort to lies? Because the facts are not on their side. Another lie. Most women who seek abortions are poor, and many already have more children than they can feed. A "cool, cavalier lifestyle" is the last thing on their minds. Spoken as the gospel truth by one who has never experienced pregnancy, childbirth, or raising a child. You want to go back to the time when women were forced to bear child after child until their bodies were worn out and they died at an early age. No, thank you.
Actually, you did switch gears from "defending those who cannot do so for themselves" to "defending the unborn". Much like the rest of the debate, if you argue different things or switch the argument, you will get nowhere other than arguing in circles which accomplishes nothing.
It was an assumption from the context. This IS the abortion forum. If you want to argue defending the mentally disabled, find the appropriate forum.
Of course moral equivalency has no place in an argument about morality. In other words, you cannot debate an issue with someone that only hears certain voices.
Fake boogeymen? there are no fake boogeymen in what I post. As to your argument for abortion, it is not argument at all. Once conception takes place the decision to end the forming life within the womb is no longer solely in the woman's "court", the child is now an entity with life that must be considered before abortion. Being that the child cannot make a decision on its own, does this mean that only the the impregnated woman's "voice" should be heard? If you answer yes to this question, what about a child who is born mute? She his or her life be ended because they literally cannot speak? When dealing with abortion, which is the topic in discussion, all avenues must be explored, not just the choice of the impregnated woman. What also should be discussed is impact. The impact that said behavior will have on society in the outcome. Since Roe vs Wade, the issue of the life of the child, what constitutes murder, the rights of the unborn, etc have not been fully examined. Even at the onset of abortion, "the life of the mother" was never an issue of concern for those who champion the pro-abortion side of the equation. Wealthy women in the United States used to simply visit Mexico, obtain an abortion and be on their way. The argument of "the life of the mother" only came into the equation once opposition to abortion grew among the population, AFTER the SCOTUS Roe v Wade decision. Knowing the history of abortion in this country, it has always been a matter of convenience and nothing more. read A history of abortion in the United States: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/a/abortion.htm Bull and Horns! Bull and Horns. PS - Fashion your argument for murder in any manner you please, the facts remains the same; When it comes to abortion, pro-abortion advocates much like their predecessors, care not about the life of the developing child you only care about what is convenient for YOU!
Says you, but you have not backed this up with anything but your own insistence. What you've just said here is that the fetus now takes precedence over the wishes of the mother simply by existing. Who are you to determine whose life is more important? Why is it automatically the fetus's? Why does the mother lose all rights to her own body just because the fetus exists? It's an absurd idea. Rights don't start at conception. They never have. Well first off, a mute person is still able to communicate. Speaking is not the only way to do so. Secondly, a mute person still possesses the intellectual capacity for communication even if they lack the physical ability to do so through the spoken word. What other avenues are there except what the mother wants? There is no waiting for the fetus to weigh in on the issue because that's impossible. The life of the mother is certainly a concern is situations where pregnancy threatens it, but this is more about the rights of the mother, not the life. A born living woman unquestioningly has rights. A fetus does not, and never has. The impact on society from abortion is a lot less than what lifers actually think it is. It does not cause social disorder. It does not lead to crime. It does not lead to the rights of one person being infringed upon. You could put forth the argument that legalized abortion leads to less care about contraception and responsibility, but even then, that's only potentially true for a small percentage of women. Lifers have never actually shown that abortion has a serious impact on society, because they argue it from an entirely emotional subjective standpoint. Pointing out objective factors about it's impact is rarely done because they just don't exist on the level that pro-lifers want them to. Says you, but since you simply don't know the specifics of each abortion that has occurred, this is a statement born from your anus. Again, a statement born from your anus. The whole convenience argument is a cop-out. Thinking you get to decide what constitutes convenience for a person you know nothing about is nothing but arrogance.
If you want to argue that abortion is morally equivalent to murder, you'll need to provide proof that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person.
lol what? im not forcing anything more than you are. the two choices you believe in are abortion or birth.... why are you forcing one or the other? why not the magical 3rd option? im not forcing anything... im giving a choice adoption or parenthood. just the same as you are. your the liars and murderers. thats a lie and you know it. because you reject god you fail to see the devil right in front of your eyes
Bingo!!! I think that abortion is a blight on our country and a horrible evil. If people lack the moral courage to stand against it, the give it their de facto approval.
How's it going? I'm an educated person who lives a good life and respects every individuals choices in life. This has nothing to do with it being a job, I don't cower behind religion like most do when proving a point they feel they are losing...what's the only way to make someone shut up...say God or Allah or Buddha! We have become such a disgusting group of people, constantly pointing fingers and wishing evil on others that do not conform to our way of life. We spend so much time pissing on the floor trying to ruin shoes when we should really be looking in the mirror and washing that garbage we call confidence down the drain. How much effort do you put into educating the youth about the importance of life? How much time do you put into educating youth about the importance of being independent? Yet at the end of the day, we justify the death sentence and take away individual independence in the same breath and say it was an act of God. Gross, some will burn for those actions. I don't mean in the afterlife either, I mean now. The pain that you will feel from someone hurt by your actions will be the equivalent of burning in hell. I guess what most who are in this thread are waiting for me to say is wether I'm pro-choice or pro-life...my answer is, "it's none of your business to know what I do in my life that does not affect your daily life." If you must know exactly what it is I am like in life, you can start by buying me a drink and having an educated conversation. However, since 80% of people on this forum are misguided in their studies and heavily opinionated, we all know intellectual conversation will not happen. I am very opinionated on how horrible we have become to one another (which one could almost call fact by looking at the 100s of posts before mine); however, being a military serviceman, an EMT, agnostic, a father, husband, son and brother, but mainly an educated and experienced combat medic and tactical response force member; I can say with confidence most of you are way off topic here.
If a father decides that his unborn child should not be aborted, then he must also convince or confirm whether the mother agrees or not. However, in the end, his input is secondary to that of the mother. She has agency over her body, not the father, and as a result, her final decision goes.
Pro choice is about having the liberty to make choices effecting your own self. The fact that another life is involved is inconsequential, because one cannot be compelled to add risk to themselves for another. Under this, the authority is entirely on the woman, whom the risk lies with in pregnancy. So until the day it becomes the man who carries the risk/reward of pregnancy, his input is moot.
Oh Cady...wouldn't it be better to give your child up and still have a chance to see or hold him or her or them sometime in the future than to kill them in the womb? At least then you could hold their hand and tell them what is in your heart regarding these (your biological) children and you?
then men should bare ZERO responsibility in paying for abortions or even for paying child support since they have no say in the matter
Is there another component of liberty? Could it be responsibility? Exercise your liberty and be responsible for that and/or who might be the result or logical outcome of an act? An orderliness rather than turmoil and chaos?
I think a guy should be able to opt out of responsibility for children they sire... But only if that option is used before the child is born. Just as you cannot have an abortion after a baby is already born, You shouldn't be able to turn into a dead-beat dad anytime... Now we're getting into the matter of opinion, which is moot in this topic.
A man may have the liberty to fire his weapon but the responsible person will discharge his firearm in a safe direction, striking only his target. Liberty and responsibility are not mutually exclusive
I do remember it said the right to bare arms, not the right to shoot people. That's the liberty is having the option. Regardless of if you own a firearm or not, shooting people will get you arrested. Just because one concept overlaps with another once in a while, doesn't make them symbiotic terms. Every poodle is a dog, but not every dog is a poodle.
Do you not support pro-life, if so then you support the removing the right of women .. that is imposing your will on someone else. I would rather live in this time, than in a time where woman had very few rights, where people were forced to work for a pittance with no rights, where men enslaved other men.
Do you enjoy twisting what people say .. where in that comment do I say that it is a baby, you need to learn to read English.
