Sounds like you just made up a load of crap. If a woman gets knocked up, then unless it was rape then she consented. No, it's not two separate acts. Having sex and getting pregnant are pretty much lumped together. Aborting the child is murder, plain and simple. You can try to rationalize, dress it up in scientific BS, etc etc, but at e end of the day, you extinguished a life, something that if nature had been allowed to take its course would be a person, loving, laughing, crying, and feeling all the other emotions and experiencing all the things that come with life. People will look back on us, and wonder how we could have possibly condoned murder on such an epic scale of so many innocent lives. It will pale in comparison to slavery in early America, and even the holocaust of the Jews. We will be looked upon in contempt and utter disgust.
Then WHY do it? ..and it will affect women's rights if they are slowly and sneakily etched away by scumbags. ..and it can be ANYONE and they are NOT physically attached to the child....DUHH, do you know what pregnancy is? See, that's where the fetus is physically connected to the woman it's in. Didn't you know that? And NO one is physically attached to a born person to sustain their life , did you know that? Now she has until the 23 week....why make it less except to harass women and slowly take away their rights.
No, consenting to one act is NOT consenting to any other act. She consented to having sex not getting pregnant. NO woman can consent to getting pregnant, she either does or doesn't....and usually doesn't. When a woman has sex she doesn't automatically become pregnant, they are two separate acts that don't even happen at the same time...and the law agrees. No, they're not...plenty of people have sex and never get pregnant. Have you called the cops???? WHY NOT? . Don't have to rationalize it or dress it up...it's a woman's right, it's her body, not yours. Is that from a Hallmark greeting card...? Uh, abortion has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, "we" didn't invent it...and it had no effect on the world whatsoever. I think people will look back and wonder why we had to discuss this in the 21st century.. But it is disgusting how you denigrate what BORN humans, Jews and slaves, went through by comparing their horrible suffering with the quick painless death of a fetus....that's deplorable and sickening...
To protect those beyond 20 weeks. When you reduce your arguments to this, you admit intellectual defeat. Yes All young human life depends on others for support. You cannot withdraw it without making arrangements for others to take over your responsibility. If you don't want that responsibility, don't engage in sex that results in that responsibility. If you blow that, you have 20 weeks to secure an abortion.
Fox: Then WHY do it? ..and it will affect women's rights if they are slowly and sneakily etched away by scumbags. ..and it can be ANYONE and they are NOT physically attached to the child....DUHH, do you know what pregnancy is? See, that's where the fetus is physically connected to the woman it's in. Didn't you know that? And NO one is physically attached to a born person to sustain their life , did you know that? Now she has until the 23 week....why make it less except to harass women and slowly take away their rights. *************************************************************************************** There is no need to, they are protected after 23 weeks. Here's the WHOLE COMPLETE sentence that you want to avoid:"""..and it will affect women's rights if they are slowly and sneakily etched away by scumbags.""" YES, people who want to take away women's rights are scumbags, they may be saints to you until they try to take away YOUR rights.. Obviously not or you'd know that a fetus is attached to the woman it's in like no other persons are ever attached... And here you said you knew what pregnancy was...tsk , tsk. "OTHERS"...as in ANY others...NOT the mother, not someone who has to be physically attached to the child... Is a born baby attached to it's nanny exactly as it was attached inside it's mother? The answer is NO, it is not, there is a diffence...get a biology book and you'll see... People certainly can and have... Well, duh, that's lousy advice, hasn't ever worked before but maybe you saying it will make it work... and you thought of it first before anyone else ever thought of it !!.....I am impressed. NOW do tell me how you intend to change human nature because since humans began they have had sex and will have sex whether wisely or unwisely... will they because you say so?? If a woman doesn't want the responsibility of a kid all she has to do is be responsible and have a legal medical procedure called an abortion... Now they have 23 weeks and most are done sooner and don't say ""so why worry about this law" ...I answered that already, there is NO reason for the law except to etch away at women's rights by scumbags... OH LOOK, my whole post above.
Ut-oh! That's an insult not an argument, an admission of defeat! Ut-oh! Ut-oh! That's right. And she has 20 weeks to do it, before her child likely becomes pain-capable. Ut-Oh! It's a humdinger! Pictures of cute animals can be calming. Just look at how adorable, breath in, let it out slowly. R-E-L-A-X!
And as we can see from what happened in Las Vegas the value of human life has diminished considerably over the past decade and abortion is only another symptom. The hatred of the President - including a comedian thinking his decapitation was funny, the shootings of Republicans at a baseball field, the murders of police encouraged by groups like BLM, the demonization of Christians and Jews while sympathizing with Islam, the destruction of statues, the rewriting of American history, fake news, the hatreds now of White men and the refusal to recognize the flag all add up to a deep neurosis in the country and it's not clear yet whether there is a cure in sight.
It is not "enough" because circumstances, including the health of the child or the quality of the parents relationship, in that same time period.
> WH supports Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act Just another example of dismissing individual rights and the Constitution in favor of Political points.
Love that post ....not one word to defend what the scumbags in the OP propose....not one word of fact, there wasn't anything but some baby talk, Ut-oh ? What is that??? Adults use those words??....typical...
Ya, nobody was killed in the 20th century.....no wars, no murders, since Adam and Eve and Cain, who killed his brother, there has been no devaluing of human life, no sirree ...all started January 29 2001...
Evidently, these non-persons you speak of must have some rights otherwise we wouldn't regulate abortions and charge murderers for their deaths when they kill a pregnant woman. I'm talking about human beings. No, I'm not trying to be clever. I was pointing out the inconvenient fact that slave owners could kill their African-American possessions because they were persons who had no rights. Are you cool with that just because the law didn't recognize and defend their rights? Slaves had no rights. We had laws on the books here in Virginia that explicitly permitted slave owners and the people pursuing runaways to kill slaves with impunity. Go ahead and look it up - Google is at your fingertips. Society's expectation. You didn't know we have child support laws in this country??? And you're right - people shouldn't be making it my business or anyone else's business to support their children. That's their responsibility. I agree, but our society, government and the law are more than happy to do that. Oh, I do, and I get your double-standard about the euphemisms people on both sides of this issue use to describe themselves. I'm just honest enough to be consistent about it. I understand that "pro-choice" is a euphemism that people who are pro-abortion use to make their position sound more palatable and respectable. To be "pro-choice" is to be FOR ABORTION. That's never been an issue with the pro-abortion crowd and I never stated that it was. The issue is whether or not we can snuff out a human life without being charged with murder. The issue is whether or not we are going to drive women back into the shadows and into the hands of shady abortionists like Kermit Gosnell, because women are going to get abortions whether it's legal or not. The issue is whether or not we are going to let them do it openly and legally so they can get the best medical attention available when they terminate a pregnancy. Of course, the law and many of us who are pro-abortion have our limitations, hence the restrictions on late-term abortions, just as many in the anti-abortion crowd support a woman's right to abort in cases of rape and incest. What is this "women having the same rights as everyone else" nonsense? As a matter of law and biology, everyone is not free to choose to do whatever they want, and most of the Leftists in the pro-abortion crowd are anything but pro-choice when it comes to things like purchasing health insurance. "Pro-choice" is about women having the right to get an abortion, period. Nothing more, nothing less. The only thing I'm advocating is honesty. Isn't that what you were advocating? By the way, if you're really pro-choice, and if you support the ObamaCare individual mandate you are not, then you should be okay with people exercise the right to refer to themselves in any manner they see fit, no matter how disingenuous or ridiculous their terminology might seem.
Another brilliant post, Fred. In my estimation, this has been building for the past 50 years - we're just seeing it reach critical mass now. What we're seeing is the toxic effects of the Nihilism that is poisoning our society, and sadly that is a symptom of a people/nation in decline. The cure is right in front of our noses - the question is whether or not we are going to draw the poison out of our veins. I'd like to think that we're seeing a glimmer of that right now, but I'm not sure it can be sustained. Our appetite for self-destruction will be difficult to overcome.
You are obviously not wanting unborn humans to have civil rights. When, IN YOUR opinion does an unborn human become a real human, with at least the same rights as slaves did 150 years ago? Do they magically become human only after they are born, or not until the umbilical cord is cut (like Obama decreed)? But "it's all about the woman" and their rights, huh?
They do NOT have rights, they have protections. So am I, human beings have rights. One of which is the right to have legal medical procedures. Slaves were BORN persons who should have had the rights of all BORN persons. A fetus isn't BORN, please, DO look up what "born" means. ..and your comparison of slaves to fetuses severely denigrates and minimizes what those PERSONS suffered is quite deplorable.. A fetus does not suffer. And it was wrong to take away the rights of BORN persons.....what's your point??? You do not speak for "society" It's not your responsibility so if these people abandon their children you want NO part of supporting those "precious lives" that you care so much about BEFORE they were BORN ? I'm quite happy with the law and government protecting women's rights from people like you. There is no need to make abortion palatable and acceptable.....it is a legal medical procedure that more than half of Americans think should be legal. To say that is to show you don't care about women's rights or women. Women are capable of making their own decisions even if you think they can't...(and now you'll claim you aren't sexist, LOL!) That sure is what the ANTI-CHOICE crowd wants ????? Uh ,that's such a confused mess maybe you'd like to rephrase it... NOTE: Poster says women having the same rights as everyone else is NONSENSE..... Now, will you claim you are NOT sexist and misogynistic?!!!!!!!!!!!!! , They most certainly ARE... Which, of course, has nothing to do with abortion choice which is the topic. Yes, they get to CHOOSE whether to have an abortion or NOT. NO one is forcing them to have one and Pro-Choice fights to make sure no sickos FORCE them to give birth is they don't want to. Actually the FACT that you think women having rights is "nonsense" should've ended any conversation...
I have been of the mind that abortions should not be allowed after human traits are clearly evident, which has meant when complex brain waves are evident. This is generally around 4-1/2 to 5 months. The pain criteria is interesting and I would surmise coincides fairly close to the brain wave criteria. My question is: how do you know when a fetus feels pain? Can a fetus feel pain without human brain function?
This pretty accurately sums up my feelings on abortion. I've never met a woman who has had one who looked at it as anything other than denying another person's life. It's still a woman's choice and all, but a choice the woman owns. I'm not trying to make a bad situation worse, but that's the undeniable reality of the situation and I find people repugnant for treating it as anything less.
Why do they have "protections"? Why do we restrict late-term abortions and charge murderers for their deaths when they kill a pregnant woman? Evidentally, the law presumes that they have some right to life. On this we agree. Shoulda, coulda, woulda, but didn't. They were granted no rights from conception. A fetus isn't BORN, please, DO look up what "born" means. I know what born means and I know that being born didn't make slaves persons with rights. I made no effort to denigrate anyone or their suffering. Your dishonesty is deplorable. How would you know? Obviously, you were never ripped from your mother's womb. Yes, it is wrong to deprive any human being of their rights. That and the weakness of your argument, which is based on the arbitrary nature of our laws that can change from one day to the next, was my point. I never said I did. I said the law spoke for or society, which is why we have child support laws. I have no rights and responsibilities as a parent over other people's children, regardless of whether they are born or not. What are you babbling about? We're both pro-abortion - how are you protecting women from us? Evidently, there is a need, otherwise the people wouldn't fabricate anodyne euphemisms to refer to themselves. To say what you just said shows that you are incapable of honesty, and in light of your complaints about the euphemisms that the anti-abortion side uses to refer to itself it exposes your own hypocrisy. Not very LOL-worthy, I'm afraid. I support women being able to obtain an abortion within the parameters of the law and I haven't changed my position on that. Yes, that is what the ANTI-ABORTION crowd wants, and I disagree with it. I don't see anything moral about driving women back into the shadows and into the hands of butchers like Kermit Gosnell. I was quite clear. What part of what I posted are you confused about? The part about women obtaining abortions before it was legal? The part about the pro-abortion crowd advocating for the legalization of abortion? The part about people on both sides of the debate (and the law) not taking an absolutist position on abortion? NOTE: You argued that women should possess a right that no one else possesses. Since when are men capable of bearing children? By all means, explain that nonsense to me... I'm a sexist and misogynist for pointing out the fact that only women can bear children? Am I a bigot for pointing out the sky is blue? We most certainly are NOT free to choose to do anything we want. For example, as a matter of biology I am not free to choose to bear children if I want, and as a matter of law I am not free to choose to not purchase health insurance without paying a penalty/tax. Those are but two examples. It has to do with freedom of choice and whether or not you are really pro-choice or a hypocrite who thinks choice doesn't extend beyond a woman's womb. Yes, because we in the PRO-ABORTION crowd had the prevailing argument in Roe v. Wade and now abortion is legal. Pro-Choice fights against sickos forcing people to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty/tax, too. The only thing the pro-abortion crowd fights for is the legalization of abortion and preventing the anti-abortion crowd from infringing on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. That is not a fact - it is a DISTORTION that you fabricated, and your dishonesty is grounds to terminate this conversation.
NO DISTORTION DIRECT QUOTE from YOUR post 114 ""What is this "women having the same rights as everyone else" nonsense?""" Yes, fetuses have protections...that is why there is a cut off date for elective abortions.... fetuses , by law , are PROTECTED. See, the word "protection" is not the word "rights"...they are two different words. Animals don't have rights but they do have protections. The only thing I'm confused about is you claiming you are Pro-Choice while screaming against it....A Pro-Choicer doesn't refer to abortion with the dramatic hyperbolic lie, """"never ripped from your mother's womb.""" Slaves were BORN persons who should have had the rights of all BORN persons. A fetus isn't BORN, please, DO look up what "born" means. ..and your comparison of slaves to fetuses severely denigrates and minimizes what those PERSONS suffered is quite deplorable.. A fetus does not suffer.
Amen, and I don't see how your honesty could possibly make a bad situation worse. Personally, I think we could use more of it. I also know women who have had abortions and to their credit every one of them has been honest about it, too. They're not idiots - they knew what they were doing and it wasn't a decision that they took lightly. I can respect the arguments of the people who oppose abortion, but I don't labor under the delusion that human beings are morally infallible creatures. Furthermore, despite my own reservations I don't see the morality in forcing women back into the shadows and into the hands of abortionists like Kermit Gosnell, nor do I see the morality in forcing a woman to bring the ill-begotten seed of rape or incest to life against her will.
I saw recent NIH reporting of improvements of the ability to measure brain activity in fetuses recently. And as we advance as a society some of these policies need updating: I searched for it and can't find it, but I did find this: SECOND TRIMESTER: BABY SUCKS, SWALLOWS, BLINKS AND DREAMS At around 18 weeks of pregnancy, you'll feel baby's first kick(but don't worry if it takes a few weeks longer — that's common, especially among first-time moms). Around the same time, your baby's nerves become covered with myelin, a protective insulation that speeds messages between nerve cells (myelin continues to grow until your baby's first birthday). And at 24 weeks, another big reflex occurs: Blinking. The previous standard was when movement was detected or "quickening". That's about 1/2 way through the 40 weeks and a good a standard as any. https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-brain-nervous-system/
We clearly aren't going to agree, but I value your opinion and appreciate you sharing it with me. I appreciate the discussion and the exchange of ideas.
I think most of us are fine. But there is rabid very loud minority with several powerful national communication platform that is out of their collective minds.
PURE DISTORTION. RANK DISHONESTY. Stripped of the context of your nonsensical claim that women should possess a right that no one else has ever possessed or will ever possess. Any time you're ready to explain to me how men can bear children and possess the right to an abortion I'm all eyes... I know "rights" and "protections" are two different words, Captain Obvious, but what are we protecting if not some right? As I pointed out earlier, slave owners refused to recognize the rights of their African-American possessions. Does that mean those African-Americans possessed no rights? It's an honest question. The only thing I have "screamed" against is the euphemism "pro-choice", not a woman's right to obtain an abortion. I'm pro-abortion, and since I believe freedom of choice extends beyond a woman's uterus I would say I'm pro-choice, too.
