Big Lies for Abortion >>MOD WARNING<<

"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the negro population." - Margaret Sanger

 

Duh, that's because they didn't want to exterminate the negro population.....and of course you couldn't use the entire quote because THAT WOULD BE HONEST....



Then, there's the fact that you don't Sanger is dead and has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood.... did you know dead people can't run organizations?? You didn't know that? Whoa...

 

You complain on another thread of people insulting others then write this nasty little rant. My experience is totally the opposite to yours, finding many married women to be very discontent and desperate to get away from their overbearing husbands even if it is only for a quick (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

It really is pointless to argue this with those who deny science. The left has dehumanize many types of people over the centuries to justify killing them. They did it to slaves, blacks, Irish, and now babies in the womb. It doesn't matter that every single human has gone through that stage in life, they still claim its not human or a baby. They dehumanize the baby and say the mother should have a "right" to kill it and since the baby isn't human, it has no rights. The mother typically had a choice already that led to the conception. Only 2% of abortions come from rapes or incest.

 

We could be great friends, Joker. One of you is worth a thousand of them, at least.

"My friends are few in number but entirely sufficient." - Winston Churchill

 

65% of abortions are provided to women who self identify as Christians.

 

Right, a fetus isn't a baby. Is this a definition thing or semantics like "infant" and "baby"? Either way, its human.

So you are saying the left/democrats didn't say slaves were property? Blacks were inferior so segregation was justified?

In what way are gays dehumanized?

So, if its human, that means it has human rights? If not, why not?

Babies aren't being aborted because they are "harming" the mother. You cant kill your boss just because you think they are holding you back, aka "harming" you. Abortions are being preformed because the mother wants it, not life threatening reasons.

Again, if its human, than it has human rights.

What extra rights to a baby am I proposing? The right to life? And why don't they have rights until they are born? Why don't they have rights just because they are human?

They cant? So a baby just spontaneously appears in a womb with no actions prior to conception? Hey, if I steal your money, am I not choosing to deal with the presumptive consequences of possible jail time afterwards? Why do women get a free pass from dealing with consequences of their actions of choosing to have sex?

I didn't condone abortions from rape, just saying that's the only time a woman didn't chose the actions required to be pregnant.

 

Yet another pro-lifer who hasn't got a single clue to reality and takes everything places like life site news say as 100% true .. it is sad to see that so many people can be brainwashed so easily.

- - - Updated - - -

Misrepresentation, cherry picking and using out of context is as bad a lying as far as I am concerned.

 

1. What science is being denied?
2. Certainly human, definitely not a "baby"
3. What dehumanizing are you on about?
4. Whether the fetus (that is one of the correct medical names for the unborn BTW, baby isn't) has rights or not is irrelevant to the abortion debate.
5. Consenting to sex does not equal consenting to pregnancy.

 

Correct, just as you are an adult not a child (one assumes that anyway), each stage of human life has a correct medical designation, at no time during pregnancy is one of those designations baby.

Even if it did have human rights, those rights do not allow it to use another persons body to sustain it's own life without consent .. you cannot do that, so why should a fetus be able to?

Another who thinks deadly force can only be used in life threatening situations, deadly force in self-defence can be justified in the case of serious injury and loss of liberty, and pregnancy is already legally deemed as a serious injury in some cases. If the female (there is no mother until birth has occurred or if she already has born children) is choosing to have an abortion then by default she is not giving consent for the fetus to use her body against her will.

The right to use another persons body without consent, no other person has that right and advocating that the unborn should have that right is a direct violation of the equal protection clause.

Please research actual cause and legal cause, consenting to sex is nothing more than consenting to the risk of pregnancy, and people are not expected to suffer injuries because they took a risk. If you steal my money you have already broken the law, tell me when did having sexual intercourse become illegal?

so by your logic, if you choose to get into a car and it crashed injuring you then you shouldn't get any medical treatment, after all you did chose the actions that led to you being injured.

 

Fox is quite correct, perhaps you would like to explain why you think Fox is not correct?

The reality is that the only difference between many things being a crime and not being a crime is whether consent has been given ... sexual intercourse is not a crime unless consent has not been given, that is then rape. Taking money is not a crime, unless it is taken without consent, that is then theft.

Yes because they did so without the females consent. Produce a single case of where a person has been convicted of killing a fetus when the female has consented.

 

Yes, as hard as that fact is for misogynists/sexists to realize , the pregnant woman DOES have the say over what happens to her body.

I have never seen a person convicted of murder for kicking a pregnant woman, or anyone else, in the stomach....why would they even be charged with murder if no one died?

 

Except a house and a giraffe are the same thing in any way. Baby and fetus are days or months apart and fall under the umbrella word of "human". A house will never turn into a giraffe or vise versa, this is a red herring.

Actually, many pro-choicers call a fetus or baby in the womb as "just a clump of cells".

You say Fetuses are human, yet you deny that they have the right to life, how is that not dehumanizing using your own logic here? No one is taking a woman's right away, you have no right to kill someone just for your convince.

^^^Previous statement.

Your arm has the exact same DNA as you. It cant move or supply itself with nutrition without the rest of the body. Its all one organism. The baby, fetus, HUMAN, in the womb is a separate entity than the mother. Just because it hasn't passed through the magic hole, doesn't mean its any less of a person, as you just dehumanized it again.

Hence, killing the human and denying it the right to life.

Only if its life threatening. Sorry, but most abortions aren't done because of life threatening circumstances.

Again, you dehumanize the baby.

And having sex carries the risk of becoming pregnant which leads to the risks you pretend to care about. Hell, if there is just the "possibility of death", does that mean we can just kill whomever we want cause 100% murders happen from other humans.

This is the most assigning argument. You are equating a baby to an arm. An arm has no heart, brain, or any organs it would ever need to survive on its own. No human has ever started life as "just an arm" and grown from there. Again, dehumanizing the baby.

Like taxes and welfare? Hell, why stop at "when they are born"? No baby can survive on their own and that "forces" someone to give up their time and energy to provide the baby a right to life. Guess we should also carry out mercy killings on the mentally challenged who cant provide for themselves too right?

No one has the right to life huh? This is where I know there really is no arguing with you cause you believe anyone can be killed for any reason that suits your feelz.

Yes, read a biology book, learn how women become pregnant. What action does it take, naturally speaking, that causes conception.

But hey, again, me robbing you isn't me consenting to go to jail either is it?

Why? Did the baby chose to be conceived? Why does the baby have to die for the mothers feelz? If we don't have the basic right to life, how do we have any rights at all?

 

If its human, then it has the right to life. If you deny that right, you claim that its because the baby hasn't passed through the magic tunnel that bestows its rights and there for, you are claiming that it has no rights, and therefor isn't human...enough(dehumanizing it) to live. The baby's rights have everything to do with the abortion debate since you are denying it the right to life.

Me robbing you isn't me consenting to go to prison, but if Im caught, I will have to deal with the consequences of my actions right?

 

http://www.wbir.com/news/local/east...ing-pregnant-girlfriend-unborn-child/94896867
"The trial lasted five days. Donaldson was also convicted of second degree murder in the death of Crider's unborn child, and the attempted second degree murder of her mother, Pebbles Crider."

Care to retract that first statement?

Also, you show us again how you dehumanize the baby in the womb by trying to claim it isn't alive.

 

My skin cells are human . .do they have the right to life .. that is the problem with so many pro-lifers they continue to try and interchange the human adjective with the human noun, like your first sentence depends on whether the human is adjective or noun, if it is an adjective then you are saying that anything human (adj) has a right to life, if it is a noun then the sentence is incorrect and should read if its a human.
Whether the fetus (there is no baby until birth) passes through the "magic tunnel" or not is irrelevant, if it is a person from conception then it must abide by the restrictions of that status ie. it cannot assume to have consent to impose and use another persons body in order to sustain it's own life, it must gain separate consent from the female, if it is not a person then it cannot have any rights .. it's status as human isn't relevant to it's rights and no one I have ever seen has said the fetus is not human.

Your act of robbing me is illegal, tell me when did having sex become illegal? People do not have any obligation to suffer injuries when taking a risk that is legal. By your logic by you getting into a car that crashes means you have to suffer the consequences of your actions of getting into the car and suffer the injuries without any medical help to remedy them.

 

Again this is to do with consent, the woman did not consent to the attack by the man .. now find one where the woman DID consent (if you can). Perhaps I could suggest you read the UVVA type laws that allow this type of conviction, you will find that they all contain something along the lines of the following;

c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution&#8212;

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution&#8212;of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

 

Bolding above mine.

WHY would I retract my statement. Poster claimed a person was charged with murder for "kicking a woman in the stomach"....that is NOT murder....

YOU are just moving the goalposts for your CONVENIENCE (convenience, a thing which you don't want anyone else to use)


This Donaldson was convicted of murder NOT of kicking someone in the stomach...

That charge of murder came because of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. That's because Donaldson, like Anti-Choicers, took away the woman's choice. He took away part of her she wanted.

YUP, the woman decides, only she can give consent or not...

BTW, the UVVA has a clause saying it has nothing to do with abortion.

 

Do the skin cells on your body have a right to life just because they are human?

Those skin cells are just as human as any other on your body yet you discard them on a daily basis without a single thought.

Simply because cells are human does not automatically mean that they have a right to life.

The right to life is granted by We the People to all persons who are "naturally born". That is the legal criteria for individual rights.

 

Totally wrong. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. No-one can consent to the killing of another human being whereas they can consent to someone taking their money.

Answer this question, what is the person who kicked the pregnant woman, convicted of?

- - - Updated - - -

Here's another example-

Man guilty of killing unborn baby by kicking mum's stomach

 

Read post #48