12% of abortions are for rape or health concerns, the rest are selfishness. LOL! I'm showing how the 'laws' justify slaughtering life.
Prove fact. Yep. Showing you how abortionists use Hitler's laws to justify killing the unborn. - - - Updated - - - As is your approval of a holocaust on the unborn.
But you're not thinking outside the box...you feel the exact same way some Anti-Choicers feel and have felt: Women who have consensual sex must have that fetus, she canNOT have an immoral abortion ...women who are raped and have an abortion are not having an immoral abortion.... WHAT?!! The "morality" of an abortion is based on the conception .....???
Can we lose the Show and Tell Kitty crap. Now show you credentials that prove YOU can judge the mental condition of every woman on earth. Answer: You don't have them and neither does anyone else. That "Ego" is getting in the way of rational thinking......
Why doesn't the Anti-Choice side advocate for the choice of the mother? The woman is the one who gets pregnant...as soon as men do they will have EXACTLY the same right ..unless self-righteous busy bodies have made abortion illegal taking HIS choice away from him ....
No proof, just opinion Dishonesty in comparisons is not showing anything except your own dishonesty Producing strawmen in order to try and validate your erroneous assumptions just shows the dishonesty you are willing to take .. fair enough, one can assume you are nothing more than irrelevance.
I'm in a rush so I'll do my best to answer as best I can in a short time. To the first bit, I didn't take it "so far out of context." The challenge was "Find one single instance where a person has been forced by law to allow the use of their body, or parts there of, to sustain the life of another.." Cut and dry, challenge answered mate. To the second bit about adoption, you're actually wrong. A father who owes child support can't do a damned thing to get out of it except die. And you didn't actually create a context. If you want the challenge to be so narrowly tailored so as it can't be met, you can do that, but you'd have to add some exceptions and paramaters, and it'd basically be meaningless because anyone can see how cheap that is. as far as public servants - yes, they're legally required to do their job. I'm not as familiar with cops and firefighters, but a soldier is as legally bound to do what he's told as the President is (theoretically) bound to enforce the law. and again, the answer wasn't taken out of context, you didn't establish paramaters, you had a pretty wide open challenge. No, people are legally required to be responsible. No, there isn't some stone tablet in the capitol saying "thou shalt be responsible", it's unfortunate you'd take a statement "so out of context." But seriously, yes you're legally responsible for your kids. Your children deface property? You pay for it. It's your legal responsibility to provide for them. It doesn't take leaps and bounds how this is so easily extended to pregnancy. To the counter-q: that's a cop out. You're pro-women's choice, anti-men's choice.
so do the laws surrounding war, so do the laws surrounding executions .. so really you have no point and its just the standard pro-life agenda to try and associate something with abortion that you hope will demonize those who disagree with your control ideology and usually found in those who don't have a relatively high level of intelligence. If you want to consider you own country as a par to Nazi German then please feel free to do so, because that is all you are doing.
The woman is the one who gets pregnant...as soon as men do they will have EXACTLY the same right ..unless self-righteous busy bodies have made abortion illegal taking HIS choice away from him ....
well the challenge was set in the same context as a pregnancy, ie a physical attachment, and/or the actually removal of an organ / blood etc, so yes from my point of view the responses are out of context, and of course relies on the interpretation of "allow the use of" and "to sustain the life of", you have interpreted it to mean something it was not intended to .. but as I said, my mistake. I think you will find I am not, there is nothing to stop ANY parent giving their child up for adoption. Again not strictly correct, a father who has no resources or ability to pay is not expected to. Personally when the challenge surrounds the abortion debate then the answers should have some relevance to that .. ie an item where a person has been forced by law to give up a physical part of their body .. none of the answers given actually do that, and I personally find the answers given as 'cheap' such as? Nope a cop or a firefighter cannot be forced to risk their life or limb, and a solider signs a contract when enlisting, that includes the risk to his/her life and limb in the defence of his/her's country, a woman signs no such contract. again a contract. Which I have already admitted that the question did not have established parameters .. but I still see the answers as taking the question out of context when dealing with abortion and comparable situations. I think you must mean people are not legally required to be responsible. You are only legally responsible for you kids actions, not to provide for them .. hence why there is such a thing as care homes and adoption. It takes a huge leap and bound to make the assumption that because you are responsible for a childs actions after you CHOOSE to have them is the same as allowing another 'person' to use your body without consent. how is it a cop out, it is equal choice for both men and women .. if either or both should become pregnant the choice is theirs whether they continue the pregnancy or not, there is nothing Anti-men's choice in that statement at all.
LOL so not only do you rely on strawmen you also cherry pick other peoples comments to suit .>>>Flame Removed<<< and so is the point of pro-lifers using the same controlling properties of the Nazi's .. to anyone with objectivity that is.
I took the two laws and put them side-by-side. There is no difference. Pro-lifers have enacted no law that reduces life to non persons. Abortionists have.
Really, then please do point out a single law that has been introduced by pro-choice people that reduces life to non-persons .. and before you say Roe I'd advise you actually research it otherwise you will just make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have. BTW: The Nazi regime also cracked down on abortion, imposing tough requirements for terminations on medical grounds, and harsh penalties for illegal abortions. Propaganda described abortion as a crime against the body and against the state. - Sounds familiar. http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/women-in-nazi-germany/ You should read the above link you will find that you and the Nazi's have so much in common.
Sure I did. I supplied the link and words used to describe a fetus. 'Non persons' ala Hitler in 1935.
2 things. First, I think you responded earlier - if you want to fix your post I'll be glad to respond, but I'm not going to fix the parsing for you, it's a headache to do if the other poster didn't do it right to begin with. Second - you've actually got yourself in a quandry. First, everyone knows that what we're actually discussing here is the choice to be free of parental responsibility. That is a choice given to a woman, and you justify not giving it to a man because... he's a man. That's as s exist as saying a woman can have a job when she becomes a man. But the real quandry is that if woman is pregnant and abortion is legal at a given point in discussion (let's say a month in), legally it's not a person. That's what allows her to have an abortion (legally) - so if it is not a person, how can you already hold the father to his responsibility to a person that isn't a person, but allow a mother to kill a person who isn't a person? Lazy dodges get you quandaries like this
"""how can you already hold the father to his responsibility to a person that isn't a person, """ I don't. The woman is the one who gets pregnant...as soon as men do they will have EXACTLY the same right ..unless self-righteous busy bodies have made abortion illegal taking HIS choice away from him ....
I found a little history of where you abortionists came form................. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2847937/posts According to the documents released today, Josef Mengele, the Auschwitz death camp doctor known as the "Angel of Death" for his experiments on inmates, practiced medicine in Buenos Aires for several years in the 1950's. He "had a reputation as a specialist in abortions," which were illegal. When one young woman died from his treatment, he was taken before a Buenos Aires judge, who detained him only briefly.
That is not what abortion is. Many women who abort already have children, some of them already have more than they can care for. The man is not a father until the baby is born, and that is when his responsibility begins. He is not responsible for the cost of prenatal care or childbirth.
no it is your assumption that what is being discussed is the choice to be free of parental responsibility, what I and others are discussing is the freedom of choice for a woman to decide who, what, where and when her body is used without her consent. Should a man be in the same position then of course he has the right to make the same choices as the woman. There is no quandary, a man is not responsible at any point during the pregnancy (when there is no person) that responsibility does not materialize until after the birth (when there is a person), a man has no legal obligation to a pregnant woman, none what-so-ever. He is not forced to pay anything, he is not forced to remain with the woman (and his 'child') in fact there is nothing legally to hold him to her at all. Should pro-lifers get their way then that changes, the man then becomes legally responsible to pay at least half of all and everything that involves that pregnancy, where as the woman losses her right to body autonomy and the fetus gains a right not other person has .. the right to use another persons body in order to sustain their own life .. So the question is why are you advocating super rights for the fetus?
