Big Lies for Abortion >>MOD WARNING<<

How can anyone be taken seriously when they think abortion means killing babies?


...and calls a part of the female anatomy a "magic hole"...

 

Yes of course humans get pregnant with humans. We were discussing why when people discuss abortion, they use the biological term fetus.

The fetus being human has nothing to do with adult, sentient women having dominion over their own bodies. Try to stay focused..you're all over the place and not making much sense.

Ummm, you might want to look up the definition of sentient. Sleeping people are still sentient.

BUT if the sleeping person has crawled up inside a woman's uterus and she doesn't want it there, yes it will be ok for her to abort it.

A fetus isn't a person....its a fetus and its living off off of the female's body. Her rights to her body supercede the rights of an unsentient, dependent fetus.

The rest of your post is simply emotional blather. If you feel this strongly about abortion, you have every right not to have one. What you don't have the right to do is impose your will onto the private medical choices of others.

I could go on a rant about masturbating men slaughtering millions of knuckle babies but they probably wouldn't care much and would continue to exercise their private sexual choices as they saw fit. That pretty much sums up how any pregnant woman would feel about your opinion. Its irrelevant...find something else to do with your time.

 

Sigh...are you trying to equate women exercising their private medical rights to Hitler?

(rolling my eyes)

 

When does a baby's heart start beating?
Careful now. This is science, it's not word games played by Leftists.

The answer, which I just found out by looking it up for this post, is 22 days after conception.
If only Leftists were as compassionate with helpless, unborn babies, as they are with murderers, who Leftists don't want to be executed,
because THAT is "cruel." Killing unborn babies, without permission of the father of the baby, months after conception, months after its heart has started beating, well THAT isn't "cruel." Just call it "choice" and everything is fine.

One dead, one wounded. "Choice."

 

A brain dead patient also has a beating heart. And we terminate them

 

So kill the many to save the few. What a great guy you are.

BTW SCIENCE has nothing to do with this. Natural laws are what humans are. We were given the right to self protection; BUT NOT BY TAKING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE. In addition, except for a few, actually very few, aberrations in which the woman gets pregnant, like rape, the woman does get the choice, BEFORE THE SEX. Creating human life just to destroy it a very high level of evil.

 

In this and most countries she gets the choice after sex too.

 

OOOh, why do I get the impression that if a woman has the "permission of the father of the baby" (actually "prospective father") "killing that unborn baby" is OK with you? BTW, a heart beat is not what makes a being valuable, we kill animals with heart beats regularly for food.

 

How odd. YOU haven't been able to prove anything a Pro-Choicer posted was a lie.

You: ""The 1,000,000+ abortions performed every year are NOT done for reasons of the aborting person's (NOT a "mother," mind you, for no "mother" worthy of the word would entertain abortions of convenience to kill their babies) health or safety.

A. you can't prove that

B. No woman on earth has to have YOUR approval for having an abortion Women can have an abortion for any reason they choose and YOU can't do a thing about it



BTW, women with children have abortions.....they care so much for their children that they consider what an addition to the family might do to them.

 

Post 118 is not my quote (system glitch) Post 115 is not my quote

 

A fetus's heart beats as long as the women that its inhabiting is in agreement that she wants to give birth and is in agreement that she's being used as a host. Its heart beats because of her willing involvement in the process. It will stop beating if that same woman doesn't want her body to be inhabited by a fetus.

A heart, is simply a muscle that beats to pump blood. The more important question is sentience and fetuses are not yet sentient. In fact, most people don't even have memories until they are toddlers or young children.

At the end of the day, how YOU feel doesn't matter. You are not right unless you are talking about what is right for your body. The only "right" in this issue is when a woman gets pregnant only when she's trying to. Otherwise, its all about what's the best choice for her, her situation and her family. Your opinion in the face of someone else's decision is absolutely meaningless and you aren't really making any salient points.

 

You make up any "impression" you want, so long as it promotes the lies you advance in order to kill helpless, innocent babies. That is evil.
You LIE that "killing that unborn baby is OK with" me, so long as the father gives his permission. I merely point out that no father has any "CHOICE," which is your operating word. If a father has to pay child support for 18 years, you could care less. His "choice" or lack of it is meaningless to you hateful feminists (sic). So is the "choice" of grandparents and baby.

And of course you think animals are just as "valuable" (your word) as human beings. Hence the Left-wing media spent six times as much air time reporting on the shooting of a gorilla, as on the beheading of 21 Christians by ISIS. The Left-wing media panders to Leftists, like you, and spins stories to suit your joint Leftist agendas. That's not "news." It's propaganda.

 

So you want men to have the choice to force women to have abortions...weird...

 

Well actually they can, it is done all the time in courts when a death penalty is passed, and as per Roe vs Wade and all UVVA laws the female can consent to an abortion which kills "another human being", you can include war in that as well where the government gives it's troops the right to kill "another person" without their consent.

Tell me are you required to gain the consent of someone who is injuring you before you defend yourself, even to the extent of using deadly force?

I did answer, you just didn't like the answer as it blows your ideology apart. UVVA type laws are based on consent, plain and simple, if not then show me a conviction of anyone where the fetus has been killed and the female gave consent .. I know you cannot which basically renders your assertion irrelevant.

 

The criminals were not charged or convicted of murder though were they, yet according to you the killing of a fetus is murder .. they were convicted (rightly so) of child destruction and causing grievous bodily harm, not murder.

 

I'm sorry that you consider English to be moronic, and please do point out where I have denied "its basic right to life." .. I have not done so at all, so please don't attempt to push your dishonesty onto me.

There are no restrictions on what a person can or cannot do to their own body, nor are there restrictions on defending yourself against others. The position of the fetus has nothing to do with it, the fact is, and you know this, that one person CANNOT impose and use another persons body in order to sustain their life without that persons consent REGARDLESS of the circumstances that led to it being where it is. People on welfare is irrelevant as they do not cause physical injury to other people.

I have no idea what "boonies" or "SOL" means.

 

no murder charge ever mentions consent, and yet what is murder but killing someone against their will .. consent is the foundation of pretty much every law there is, and it is the only thing that allows one person to over rule another persons right to life (not talking about judges giving death sentences here) when that person is causing injury to another person without their consent.

find a single person who has been convicted of murdering a fetus where the female consented to it .. I know you cannot.

 

This is another typical abortion thread, that the 'pro choice' crowd only wants to disrupt & muddy. They will not deal with 'when' human life begins, but only deflect with ad hominem & the usual 'you hate women!!' absurdities. The issue here is a human being. When does this 'person' become a person? Why? That is the challenge of the OP, not deflections about his ability to conceive, or his psychological profile, or his association with nazis or racists.

Anything to avoid the issue. Deflect, insult, demean, muddy, & distract. But defining human life or debating the science of life they will not do. Why is that? IMO, it is because all of reality, facts, science, & history SCREAMS at them like an unborn baby being ripped apart in the womb.. 'I am a human being!! Protect me!! Don't let these people kill me!!'

If you cannot see the issue of a human being needing protection, then you are living a lie as a propagandist. You are not being honest, or facing the issue. This is not about gender or sex or politicians or public opinion. This is about the RIGHT of a human being to live, without threats of violence upon his person, from those he has done nothing to provoke.

 

Utter rubbish. Just about every argument you have made is irrelevant.

A murder case does not mention consent but a rape case does. Have a guess as to why that is.

Homosexuality was illegal for a long time even if both partners consented. Someone who commits murder will still be tried for murder, even if the victim consented.

Pro choicers talk about women choosing whether another human being inhabits their bodies (which basically means taking care of the baby for a few months) but when they had intercourse they knew that was a definite possibility. If someone fires a gun in the approximate direction of other people he knows it is a definite possibility that one of them could die. That person would then be tried for murder. He would not get away with it because he was not sure it would happen. Women too must take responsibility for their actions.

It is patronising and infantalising to women to say to them they do not have to take responsibility for their actions. If women want equality they must act like adults.

A woman does not have the right to choose whether another human being lives or dies. That is why abortion is illegal in many countries and should be in all.

 

Actually they are, find any scientific biology book that deals with the subject and you will find that there are a number of designations assigned to the unborn during pregnancy, baby is not one of them.

Absolute rubbish, calling something by it's correct name is not dehumanizing it .. if that is what you believe then I can call you a baby because your designation of adult means nothing. your insistance of using the incoorect term baby is nothing more than an emotional projection attempting to force feelings of guilt in others.

Life only has as much value as another places upon it, and that is true for you as much as it is true for everyone.

Yes there is.

Wrong, all of the above apart from the pregnant one are contractual obligations, please show me the contract that a male and female sign when having sex that states she must remain pregnant. A doctor signs a contract to treat (even though they can refuse on certain grounds) , a solider signs a contract to fight (even though they can refuse to on certain grounds)

Doctors swear by the hippocratic oath, that is their contract
Soldiers swear an oath of allegiance, that is their contract

Where is the contract a man and woman sear to or sign?

Please can you stop using this "magic hole" thing, it is childish.
No the birth does not force the female to help it at all, she can, and many do, give up their child upon birth . .this is an option she has, there is no such option during pregnancy, her only recourse to stop the fetus from using her body without consent is to have the fetus removed.

It simply does not matter if it has rights before or after being born, those rights do not allow it to impose and injure another person without consent.

No it is not equal, name another person that can force you or anyone else to use their body to keep you alive, and yet this is what you desire for the unborn which is a direct violation of the equal protection clause, and if you get it then you are giving the state the right to force any person to give up their body in order to sustain others.

Wrong, deadly force can be justified for serious injury and for loss of liberty, pregnancy is already legally seen as a serious injure in some cases .. look up wrongful pregnancy.

Pregnancy is not just potentially harmful, it IS harmful in every case.

Newsflash, women have always had abortions as well, it's not a new thing.

You do if that person is the cause of you falling ie they physically attempted to throw you off the mountain, or can yo not defend yourself against non-consented injuries?

Then the state steps in to take care, a doctor has a contract. If the mother chooses not to feed the baby she can use an alternative remedy to remove herself from the situation, there is no requirement for her to use any form of deadly force including starving the baby to remove herself from the situation, a pregnant woman has no other recourse available to her.

Her action of consenting to sexual intercourse does not imply or mean consenting to pregnancy, the only entity that can turn a non-pregnant women into a pregnant one is a fertilized ovum that successfully implants into the uterine wall. Sexual intercourse is nothing more than taking a risk of pregnancy, and not even a very high risk, and people are not expected to suffer injuries because they took a risk.

Whether she dies or not is irrelevant, no person can be forced to give up even a single drop of blood in order to aid another person, even if it was something that person did that meant the other person was in the position they are .. not even if that person is your own child.