"Fetus in a tank" counter-question for "pro-lifers"--

On evidence of your comments so far you haver no intention of "conversing" with anyone who doesn't tow-the-line you decide on, your question has been answered, just because you don't like the answer means (*)(*)(*)(*) all, and by all means place me on ignore all that shows is your inability to deal rationally with those who do not capitulate to your demands and your yellow streak.

I answered your question and gave the rationale to that answer, sorry if it burst your balloon and deflated your ego but that is just how it is.

The question you asked was alluding to the wrong assertion that consenting to sex = consenting to pregnancy, which is irrelevant and a red herring, consenting to the sexual act has absolute zero relevance to consenting to pregnancy and/or abortion.

Now no doubt you will respond and then run away by placing me on ignore, that is your choice .. great you get to make a choice, something you want to remove from pregnant females. TBH I really couldn't care less what you do I've engaged so many like you that your type are obvious, the type that don't like their blinkered agenda being questioned and think that they are the master of all discussions.

 

Tell you what, I'll give you the yes or no answer you so desperately require (even though I have already answered your question)

my answer is yes and no, no please give your attention to responding to both those answers, so we can all see that your alluding to consent to sex equalling consent to pregnancy, which is what I knew from the start.

 

Ignore list. I win.

 

I agree totally with : ""by all means place me on ignore all that shows is your inability to deal rationally with those who do not capitulate to your demands and your yellow streak.""


Spot on....only cowards use the ignore function.......

 

I called it in my comment, no worries though just another pointless sock puppet with no real idea.

 

I'll bet if I were inside a UTERUS, I wouldn't be capable of thinking.

 

Just wondering if you realize that the board software inserts the reply into the post where it says "updated" instead of making a new post? It's not the poster doing that.

Though I think you are just looking for an excuse to not reply.

- - - Updated - - -

That is in no way, shape or form agreeing to gestate and give birth.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) on, you get better results.

 

The booby prize.

 

Somehow hundreds of us are able to use the forum every singly day without "abusing" the multi quote. I wonder how we do it? Oh yeah we control the software not the other way around. Also I never said agreeing to sex is agreeing to give birth, I clearly stated that consent to sex is acknowledgment that pregnancy may get pregnant. Do you know of any human being that is of age that doesn't know this?

 

yawn......stretch......back to the challenging threads.

 

You asked "Depends, does the tank get to decide whether or not to partake in an act that can result in pregnancy?"

The tank does NOT get to decide whether or not to partake in an act that can result in a pregnancy.

Now since we are discussing "pro-lifers" and how they consider women to be nothing but "baby-making tanks"....the LOGICAL next question is about women who do NOT get to decide whether or not to partake in an act that can result in pregnancy......involuntary sex, aka rape.

So, like the tank that has no choice....a raped woman has no choice in becoming pregnant.

So again, I ask....do you make an exception for rape? Would you allow a rape victim to obtain an abortion?

OR like the tank....would you give her no choice in the matter???

- - - Updated - - -

So you would not use your political influence (your vote, your free speech, your freedom to protest) to over-ride the Roe v. Wade decision?

 

If the tank does not get to decide then the comparison is apples to oranges.

 

NO....and that's the entire point. The woman is an adult human being bestowed with human rights by our constitution and "God" if you prefer....the fetus is NOT and thus must inherently fall below her in importance.

Do you consider cracking an egg and scrambling it for breakfast to be the same thing as slaughtering and cleaning a chicken for dinner?

 

Only if you are comparing the tank to the woman and not the woman to the tank

 

Right back ....

 

No but I would use my free speech to counsel men not to have procreational-type sex (penis in vagina with or without 'protection') without a legal commitment because, as long as abortion is legal, a male has 0 legal rights. Women who are so stupid that they get themselves pregnant with 'unwanted' pregnancies probably should have abortions. That's what abortion was for in the first place...Just ask Margaret Sanger.

 

Got to love it when pro-lifers bring up Sanger in abortion debates, she was after all vehemently pro-life and anti-abortion.

 

Sanger wanted to sterilize black women. Abortion was the next best thing I guess. Pro life my A$$.

 

Why don't you show proof that Sanger wanted to sterilize black women and she supported abortion.....it should be interesting since no one ever has...

 

Sanger believed in eugenics. "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

 

you obviously have plenty of proof for that comment care to share it or is it nothing more than your own assumption based on what you have already decided to be true i.e. confirmation bias.

 

That quote has been done to death and as usual like most pro-lifers you take it out of context and misrepresent it, why don't you be honest and provide the whole article instead of some cherry picked portion that you think supports you.

 

Why don't you show proof that Sanger wanted to sterilize black women and she supported abortion.....it should be interesting since no one ever has... and still hasn't....

Your quote isn't proof that Sanger wanted to sterilize black women...W H E R E does it say that ??????????



Sanger was explaining how blacks would trust black doctors/minister way more than white doctors/ministers for VERY good reasons. She wanted doctors women trusted so they'd be safe and feel confident to GO to a doctor. Birth control advice coming from a white doctor would not be received well......and since she wasn't out to exterminate "the Negro population" she didn't want them thinking she did....that makes sense, Anti-Choicers won't understand.

 

Uh, okay.....no, the tank does NOT get to decide whether or not to have the scientists place a fertilized egg into it that will develop into a fetus.

There, I've answered your question...fully.

Depends, does the tank get to decide whether or not to partake in an act that can result in pregnancy?--Alpha/Omega

Now try to answer FULLY any of mine.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, another example of how misogyny always eventually rears its head among so many male "pro-lifers".