Read It: Here's the Supreme Court's Basis for Overruling Roe and Casey

Doesn't matter. If I choose to drive (have sex) I don't choose to get into an accident (get pregnant). But if I do then I must deal with the consequences. Such as paying any debt, insurance cost being raised, possible charges if it ends up being my fault, etc etc. I don't get to avoid the consequences by killing the humans that are involved in those consequences.

 

Except you can do that.

 

LMAO! Yeah right, you try killing someone who's trying to increase your insurance payments due to being in a car accident, see how far that gets you. God what a stupid reply you made.

 

Didn't say it was legal, but it is an option along with running away.

 

And face even more consequences later on down the line.

 

Again still an option.

 

Not a valid one for any thinking person.

 

And at what point is that exactly?

 

See here for @Kal'Stang's clarification: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-roe-and-casey.600956/page-64#post-1073702912

 

Sorry but she still didn't choose to be pregnant, see there's this word that exists for the situation, ACCIDENT.

 

@Kal'Stang did not SAY that.

 

You've ran out of arguments I see. I was wondering when that was going to happen. To be fair, alternatively you just missed my reply.

 

You have failed to prove why a fetus should be granted privlages over a woman's body, in a state that allows for the castle doctrine.

They can't have both. If it's welcome or invited, then she won't have an abortian.

Every fetus requires a womb, once that's no longer the case its excluded from being a fetus. Unless you just want to identify everyone as a fetus to deprive them of rights.

 

What the hell does a woman's body have to do with the castle doctrine?

We agree.

No, I do not want to identify born people as fetus. If you believe that my argument implies that, then you have simply not understood my argument.

 

@Kal'Stang did not SAY that.

 

Yep he did.

 

See here for @Kal'Stang's clarification: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-roe-and-casey.600956/page-64#post-1073702912

 

Still did.

 

Then QUOTE him.

 

He can't, he knows it. All he's doing is pushing buttons. I choose to ignore most of his posts due to that.

 

There is no comparison. He's going off the an argument that simply living we choose to be involved in everything, including the bad things. IE: He's trying to twist my point about choosing to have sex knowing that there is a possibility of creating a human into .... well...the previous sentence. Not something I have ever argued of course. He's trying to take it to the extreme in order to make a point. Except it fails on any basics of examination since I have admitted that we don't choose what others do. My argument has always been about personal choice and accepting the consequences of those choices. Not choices of others.

 

"He" as in @Cybred? Because what you quoted is not a post that I sent in response to @Cybred.

 

Nope, that one was the post you were talking to @Vernan89188 in. I was referring to @Vernan89188 in that particular setting. Sorry for the confusion.

 

It has everything to do with it.
I dont understand how you cant comprehend that, and am not going to entertain someone who cant grasp such a basic concept.

 

No I am not. Pregnancy is an extreme situation, your problem is you dont consider it one. Accepting the consequence, does not mean perpetuate or make a situation worse.