AWESOME- Unborn child has inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE- AL Supreme Court

If you consider "Freedom and Liberty" to be the ability to kill ones young at your convenience.....you've got a real warped view.

 

Teaching abstinence is a part of comprehensive sex ed, but the fact is that few young people will embrace it. Scare tactics are seldom effective.

Condoms are safer than no condoms. You are kidding yourself if you think you can convince the little kiddies not to have sex at all.

Even doctors in the 19th century knew that women were having abortions, an awareness that you seem to be lacking. Neither science nor any other field of study defines legal abortion as murder.

Neither immature little girls nor mature women ever "get themselves pregnant." Such a gross misunderstanding of the reproductive process casts doubt on the value of any of your claims or pronouncements.

This is on a par with "they get themselves pregnant."

 

I don't and you're lying if you say I do.

If you believe that only Anti-Choicers get to have their view of what Freedom and Liberty is pushed down other's throats then your view is warped....

 

Maybe report FoxHastings for the smear then, because in a back and forth about abortion rights he said this gem while trying to defend choice:

How else would one take it in this context? Seems pretty straight forward. Freedom and Liberty, according to this Fox character, are lost when you cannot have an abortion at will.

Yeah, shame on living in a society with rules about killing other humans.

 

Unless girls and women are acquiring sperm and using the turkey baster method I can't even fathom how anyone would think they just up and get themselves pregnant. By magic maybe?

Or perhaps the reason they so often blame the woman for 'getting herself pregnant' is so that they may remove all those "consequences and responsibility" they constantly babble on about from the boys/men who actually got her pregnant and place all burdens on her alone?

 

Go ahead then. Let the exhaustive documentation of the experiments and their results start flowing! What are you waiting for?

 

Talk about taking things out of context !..... twist and spin and lie away....safe abortion is still legal and GOOD despite your rantings !!!

 

Hahah...all the context is there for anyone to see Fox...but anyway....Yes, abortion is still currently legal. Noone came into this thinking otherwise.

"Good" is a matter of opinion, as is "safe" but hey...dont care to split hairs over that. Im content to leave it as we obviously disagree, and get on with the weekend. ok with you?

 

TGI FRIDAY! Drinks on the house for everyone! lol

 

What violation?

- - - Updated - - -

So you don't believe there is a right to life?

 

The government bans people from selling their bodies for sex, bans them using drugs, etc.

 

Sorry but I have been warned that I cannot state that abortion is the killing of babies here because that is "flamebaiting" so I'm outta here.

 

Yes I have, haven't seen anything other than assumptions so far.

Assumption number 1, you are assuming a woman who would seek an abortion would tell ANYONE that she was pregnant in the first place.

Assumption number 2, you are assuming she would go to a regular doctor and not an underground organization such as the Jane Network (http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUFeature/TribTheater.html ) or the woman on waves (http://www.womenonwaves.org/ ) and where do you get this idea that a woman's belly would be covered in bruises.

Except there is no way to tell, unless the police have reasonable cause they cannot force a woman to undergo a physical examination.

Assumption number 3, you are assuming that there would be no doctors sympathetic to the abortion cause, there are ways to induce a miscarriage, that leave no trace, which would enable the woman to go to emergency services with a miscarriage in progress, she would then receive a legal D&C.

From a guy who has no idea how the underground abortion network ran prior to Roe, I'd suggest actually doing some historical research into the subject .. but of course you are far to knowledgeable to do that

Do you actually know what a '&' means - ampersand : The character or sign (&) representing the word and - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ampersand

always know when someone is floundering when they have to attack a persons spelling .. have you heard of dyslexia by any chance, I use a spell checker on my post prior to submitting them and as Therapeutically is a correctly spelled word it wouldn't tell me it was wrong would it.

and you have the audacity to pick me up on my spelling

(another spelling mistake I see) Assumption number 4, you are assuming that the doctor would be the one to perform the abortion instead of passing on information as to where a woman could get one from such places as the Jane Network.

No need because all of your, so called, points are based on assumptions and nothing else.

 

nice fallacy

so the woman doesn't own her own body

no idea what you are blabbering on about here or have you lost track of your own comments;

If the woman doesn't own her body after conception, who does?

 

So, so wrong .. you seem to be under some illusion that the right to self-defence can only be used in a life threatening situation .. 100% wrong.

You mean your opinion on what it is.

 

Obviously I have a better understanding than you do, otherwise you would know that at conception human (adj) life is there, not a human (noun) being.

I'll do better than give you just the genus and species, then you can see how foolish you are.

Kingdom: Animalia -
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

Does a zygote meet the full taxonomy .. nope.

 

Strawman. You are implying that pro lifers want the woman's body to be owned.

 

Yet another person under the illusion that deadly force in self-defence can only be used if there is an imminent fear of death.. It's so sad that so many Americans don't even understand their own laws.

Should a woman change her mind during sex and tell the man to stop and he does not she is within her rights to use what ever force is necessary to stop the unconsented attack on her .. if that force requires deadly force then she can use it.

 

Why the **** do pro choicers compare guilty viscous criminals with innocent fetuses? Yes, a woman has the legal right to use deadly force against a rapist, even if she consented to sex earlier, but unlike a rapist, the fetus is totally pure and innocent. You cannot compare two totally different situations to each other.

Any person who believes otherwise is either totally in denial, or utterly depraved.

 

Seriously? You are ignoring the link I provided? Intellectual dishonesty maximized in doing so.

 

Ya, I hate those sticky gooey criminals , too, Sam...

But I haven't seen anyone compare a rapist to a fetus....where was that????

 

Then you tell them that if they get pregnant, they don't get the choice to murder their child, because murder is wrong. Since sex is a moral issue, morality being the art of making choices leading to the optimum survival of the individual without violating the equal rights and freedoms of others, it's flatly impossible to teach sex without teaching baseline morality.

"If it feels good, do it this way so you won't get caught" is what they're being taught, and that is in no way a valid moral code.

Since it is not a moral code, a moral code should accompany their teaching. "Thou shalt not murder thy own baby" is a damn good place to start a moral code from, isn't it?

Then teach them the following bit of truth:

Boys who (*)(*)(*)(*) each other in the ass, boys who play hide the hot dog, boys who are confused with what constitutes proper food items, ARE going to get HIV and then AIDS and then DIE, and it will be THEIR FAULT when it happens.

No point in lying to them and calling it "safe sex" or even "safer" sex, because it's neither. It's simply putting more or fewer guns in the Russian Roulette revolver. Watch The Deer Hunter sometime.

But STOP lying to America's children. If they really are, as you peope falsely claim, mature enough to make decisions about their playthings, then they're mature enough to have the real discussion on the morality if sticking things hither and yon. They should be having discussions on the morality of raising a child outside of marriage, both the financial impact and the enormous psychological damage done to the children.

Don't pretend they're not killing a person when they take their stupid asses to Planned Parenthood for their abortion just because PP gives the DNC a lot of campaign dollars and likes it's task of killing black babies. Tell them what they're doing. Murder.

Don't pretend the murdering mother doesn't suffer potentially debilitating psychological trauma by her crime, and don't underplay the physical damage the mother may recieve from her friendly neighborhood baby-murderer, including the possiblity of death, sterility and cancer.

When it comes to teaching them the "safe" way of getting HIV, stop calling it "safe", call it what it really is: suicide.

Right. So what? Here's a clue for you: The second part of the real Hippocratic Oath forbids the doctor from murdering babies. Don't call people who murder babies "doctors", they're not.

Since they're killing a human life, a human life convicted of no crime and carrying no weapons of war, they are being murdered for the purest of selfish reasons, the simple convenience of the dumb bunny that couldn't keep her bloomers on.

Happens EVERY (*)(*)(*)(*)ING DAY.

 

How does murdering a child advance that child's individual rights and freedoms?

That's where the liberals, the fake "libertarians" of the LP, fail to understand the ideology they hijacked.

People aren't property, they can't be murdered because their egg-donor finds them inconvenient.

ALL libertarians understand this. NO libertarian supports abortion except in the rare cases where the actual life of the mother is a serious clinical risk.

 

You waste the time to go through all that babble, merely to contradict what you posted at the end?

Naturally a zygote meets the full taxonomy. It's merely the earliest stage of development that all mature adults of the species must pass through. It's 100% taxonomically accurate to claim the zygote is a member of the parent species....what else could it be, a potato?

 

That made you save a viagra pill, didn't it?