Lila Rose Shares Why Abortion Supporters Want a Culture of Consequence-Free Sex

Your opinion is that they are not persons. Others have the opinion that they are persons. That's why having the voters decide abortion laws at the state level is wholly appropriate.
If mindless things do not have interests or rights my ex would have no rights at all. And that just wouldn't be right.

 

Who doesn't want "consequence free sex" ? .. would be ridiculous and dumb to want there to be "consequences" for having a good time.

"Please God .. let my hang-over be really bad tomorrow from the drink I am having tonight" Who would wish such a thing other than someone with a screw or two loose ?

 

The woman seeking an abortion is hardly an appropriate champion for the life of the child.

 

So you completely ignore free will. Got it.

 

I totally support free will. I also support the "Inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all involved.

 

Why are you ok with the voters deciding to abort a child?

 

Well opinions should be based upon something, and that's the purpose of discussion. Voters don't determine truth, as evidenced by the wildly variable results we get from them. Your ex has a mind. A feeble mind still counts. Things without minds are not morally relevant in themselves because they cannot feel, suffer, or experience anything. Morality is based upon harm to others, but if there is nobody on the other end, that is no mind like an inanimate object or a tumor cell, then it has no moral relevance except how it affects those who do have minds. There is no other logical position, but I'm always open to hearing attempts at it.

 

Someone has to champion the lives of the unborn. A woman wanting an abortion can't do it. So the society must do it. Its not an easy call, so the decision should be localized. I thank God that our society has a heart. We jumped in to save lives in Ukraine. We routinely jump in to save lives in hurricanes, tornadoes and more. Many of us want to save defenseless unborn children. We'll see what we, as a society, will do.

 

I felt my children kick in their mother's womb. I saw them move and more in sonagrams. They were people long before they were born. I do not want to see these small unborn children murdered. You do. Let the voters decide.

 

Nope

So you are a hypocrite. Got it.

 

I am a hypocrite? How so? I suggest you get a dictionary. The word does not apply. I simply value the life of an unborn child and you don't. Where is there any hypocrisy in that? Please explain.

 

Woman chooses abortion, you are not ok with this

Voters choose abortion, you are ok with this

HYPOCRACY.

 

A woman seeking an abortion is not able to be a champion for the life of the unborn child... by definition. That unborn child needs a champion that is not actively seeking its death. I will be very satisfied a year from now when the dust is settled and so is the issue. I'm sure lots of blue states will have very liberal laws on abortion and many red states will opt to save the unborn. When that's all established and over I will be very satisfied that US Democracy has worked once again.

 

Glad to see you admit your hypocrisy.

 

No hypocrisy there at all> Do you understand the word? Look it up. It has no application here.

 

Woman chooses abortion, you are not ok with this

Voters choose abortion, you are ok with this

HYPOCRACY.

 

A woman seeking abortion cannot be a fair judge about the death of the child. It takes an IMPARTIAL decision. Stop being silly.

 

So you don't understand the concept of choice. Got it.

 

Choosing to murder an unborn child isn't a choice I can support. But I understand your position too. That's why its appropriate to have the voters decide the law that will govern abortion in each state.

 

Like I said.

Woman chooses abortion, you are not ok with this

Voters choose abortion, you are ok with this

HYPOCRACY.

 

The voters can be objective. The moms are seeking to kill the child. If they didn't want to kill the child in the first place, they wouldn't be seeking an abortion. How can a woman seeking an abortion make an unbiased decision about killing the child or letting it live? It takes an impartial decision-maker... the voters.

 

Why do you assume that a pregnant woman always wants to have an abortion?

 

Of course you don't associate rights with women...

Because some women choose not to use them.....


FoxHastings said: ↑
OK, you want states to decide if women have the basic human right of bodily autonomy..... should states have the right to eliminate free speech?

Should the states decide if they have slavery ? Go to war ?

 

I never said I did. All women seeking an abortion, however, are pregnant.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
There is NO child murdered in abortion.... if there is DO call the police, it IS your civic duty.

There IS a correct answer....women have the same rights as anyone else.

NO, Anti-Choicers insist women do NOT have the right to bodily autonomy...they insist the government should own pregnant women..

IF fetuses are deemed "persons" then they should have to have the same restriction we all have ...we CANNOT use another's body parts to sustain our lives.....and PUHLEASE don't think earning a living with one's body has anything to do with "bodily autonomy"..