Against Abortions mean you are Pro-Life

The exception YOU'D make if someone was attacking you with deadly intent....would you let them kill you or try to kill them first???

 

Death penalty, self defense, war all come to mind. Did none of these exceptions occur to you? We are simply adding one more.

 

Great. What the hell does that have to do with abortion?

 

A lot when YOU claim """Nobody should have a right to end the life of someone else.""" YOU posted it .



The exception YOU'D make if someone was attacking you with deadly intent....would you let them kill you or try to kill them first ???

 

People have merely pointed out that you tend to be only "pro" life up to the point that it causes you inconvenience.

You support controlling others action because it is easy for you.
You are not out advertising that you will donate a kidney to anyone who needs it to live because that
is inconvenient for you.

You support controlling a woman's life because you are not a woman and it is
not inconvenient for you to give up any freedom because such sacrifice has no impact on you.

You are not sending you food to the starving in Africa, because that would be inconvenient, even though it
would save lives.

Your "pro-life" stance is based on your convenience. Not actually being "pro-life". It is packaging. It is advertising.

 

Well said Sir.

 

I don't appreciate you smearing me with your lies and assumptions and innuendos. You are making
character judgements against me and casting aspersions upon me and you know nothing about me.
Personal attacks is the favorite fallback strategy of the left when they have no real logical argument.

I won't bother to return your insults by responding to you with insults. I don't make casual personal
attacks in lieu of actual logic and reason.

 

Well done, Daniel !

 

I see nothing in there that was a personal attack....simply an attack on your arguments. You see demons where none exist

 

The fetus is like a sleeping child hooked up to life support equipment in a hospital bed.
Do you still think your motto should apply?

 

What? More like a brain dead patient hooked up to life support.

 

No, a fetus is not like a sleeping child hooked up to life support equipment in a hospital bed.

 

It was nothing but personal attack. She had nothing to say about my opinions.

She made false accusations in assumptions. For instance, I am not "only "pro" life up to the point that it causes you inconvenience." What the hell does that even mean?

I am not in support of "controlling others action because it is easy for you."

And because I'm not giving away my body parts I'm not pro-life? How stupid is that? "You are not out advertising that you will donate a kidney to anyone who needs it to live because that is inconvenient for you."

I support not controlling women. Abortion is the worst way to control a woman's reproduction.
I support women having the control to not to get pregnant if they don't want to. I support not
using women as sex objects, or as sperm receptacles. Perhaps if liberals would stop pushing
and manipulating people into slutty promiscuous lifestyles and support families and family values
we would have less of a demand for aborting unwanted children. Perhaps if we taught people a
little morality there would be less of a need or desire for mothers to terminate the lives of their
children.

"You support controlling a woman's life because you are not a woman and it is not inconvenient
for you to give up any freedom because such sacrifice has no impact on you." I don't want to
see children sacrificed in the name of women's rights.

"You are not sending you food to the starving in Africa, because that would be inconvenient, even though it
would save lives." This is a debate about abortion, not poverty in Africa. These are stupid deflection
arguments.

"Your "pro-life" stance is based on your convenience. Not actually being "pro-life". It is packaging. It is advertising."
Justifying abortion with these unrelated issues and strawman arguments and personal attacks
just do not fly as valid reasonable logical arguments regarding abortion vs pro-life.

 

I think her arguments were completely valid. You wish to remove choice from women regarding a medical procedure. This is VERY controlling. You also are very pro fetus because that costs you nothing but starving babies all over the world are not your concern because they cost money. The points are quite clear and valid.

 

Of course. That is the pro-life vs pro-abortion debate. I don't women to choose
to end the life in their wombs. Children should be safe in their mother's wombs.

Is it controlling to protect innocent life from termination? If so, guilty as charged.

Starving children in Africa, people needing kidneys, and making assumptions as to what
I do or what I care about regarding these off topic issues are not valid logical arguments
that advance the pro-abortion agenda.

People need to stop making it personal, don't attack me, just present your facts and reasoning.

 

If you truly support NOT controlling women, don't push for legislation which controls them. Abortion is not the worst way to control a woman's reproduction, forced birth is worse. In addition to supporting women having the control to not get pregnant, you could support women having the control to not stay pregnant. Liberals don't push and manipulate people into slutty promiscuous lifestyles, liberals leave those choices to the people involved. It is already extremely rare for mothers to terminate the lives of their children. A fetus is not a child and a woman is not a mother unless she has given birth.

 

If you want to control women by forcing them to give birth to their children
prematurely, then maybe you should work on legislation. Roe vs Wade nullified
the laws in 50 states and all the territories in one fell swoop.

There is no law in the Constitution that covers abortion. But thanks to Roe vs
Wade, tens of millions of unborn fetuses have be terminated in the name of
women's reproductive freedom. Liberals use the courts to make laws that they
couldn't possibly get passed through legislatures or congress and signed by
governors or presidents.

 

There is no law in the constitution that covers communication over a computer. This is not speech. This is why we have a supreme court

 

Neither I nor any other pro-choicer wants to control women nor force them to do anything. That would be pro-lifers. Legislation is not needed to regulate abortion, Canada has no laws regulating abortion and they do fine without them. There is no law in the Constitution covering abortion and perhaps that is because the founders were wise enough to know they could not enforce any such law and that they should not try it. Thanks to Roe vs. Wade, abortion became safer for women, but it's not thanks to RvW that abortion has happened. Abortion has been happening for thousands of years in greater numbers than you imagine, it's not new with RvW.

 

That should be The Test....If Anti-Choicers continue to state that there were no abortions before RvW they shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion or vote..or drive a car or operate anything more dangerous than a radio...

 

(just for fun)


""If you want to control women by forcing them to give birth to their children
prematurely"""


Show proof that anyone is forcing women to give birth prematurely.........Where? When? Names? Documents? (No LIEsitenews articles )


Then explain why YOUR force is better than anyone else's force......

 

You mean like "Brown v Board of Education"?

 

You know what his weird, convoluted, disengenuous answer will be?

"Liberals want to force women to have abortions by giving them the choice to have abortions or not.....

while we conservatives want to give women the freedom to not have abortions by taking away their right to abortion.

Clearly libs want to control women...while we don't!"


It's like George Orwell meets a Monty Python sketch.

 

Yes, that ruling was wrong.

The court should have stuck to the "separate but equal" doctrine instead of improperly trying to legislate from the bench.

 

Well there you have it folks. We just need to control African americans as much as we control women and we will "Make America Great Again." LOL