A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

So, from your comment, I assume you mean the fetus - that we are carelessly, and callously taking away the choice of the fetus.

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

No? The your argument is specious, absurd, and intellectually dishonest.

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Unkotare]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

.....

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

.....

Yes, I do.

 

[Czernobog]

How about using contraception to avoid the dastardly mistake? Nobody in their right mind would argue against prevention.

First contraception is not 100%. Second, does this mean that you would agree that contraception should be free to the poor?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

When used correctly contraception is close to 100%, and some forms of contraception work nearly 100% of the time to prevent sexually transmitted disease and aid females in other ways too:

Birth Control Pills | Center for Young Women's Health

That said, the pill when prescribed by a doctor ought to be covered by health insurance carriers, notwithstanding religious concerns, and considered no different than any other medication. When used by a women solely for the prevention of pregnancy, IMO, it ought to be free. As I pointed out above, there are reasons for not having children, or another child; economic, pragmatic, personal safety. Authoritarian institutions - churches and governments - should have no say in a women's right to have or not have a child, such an exercise of power and control over women and men is alien to a nation which values freedom to the individual.

Yes. Nearly. As in most studies agree about 95%. With, conservatively, 20 million Americans having sex a year, that leaves nearly 4 million unwanted pregnancies for women who did exactly what they were supposed to do. So. You really want to force 4 million women a year to choose between having a child they never wanted, and being criminals, and going to jail? Really?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

.....

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

.....

Yes, I do.

Really? And how do you do that, pray tell? I can't wait to hear this…

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Jack4jill]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

.....

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

.....

Yes, I do.

I'll bite?

 

[Czernobog]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

.....

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

.....

Yes, I do.

I'll bite?

Yeah...ya notice they haven't responded. Picture that…

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[OKTexas]

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really?

Right now they don't. Remember....Roe v Wade was passed a long time ago, and it hasn't gone away. It is legal to have an abortion.

You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life.

It has the potential to become a person, if he/she is ever born....just like an egg has the potential to become a chicken, if someone doesn't eat it before it is hatched.

First Roe wasn't passed by any legislature, it was decided by 7 people. Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder. Third a baby has a heartbeat and basic brain functions as early as 6 weeks gestation and can be viable as early as 23 weeks. Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken. And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.

Heller, Citizens United and McCutcheon cases were decided by only five people, four others opposed them.

Abortion, when done in compliance with Roe is not murder, since it is legal.

Ok, so you can't read. See the second point above.

 

[OKTexas]

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really? You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life. How about I leave your shit alone, and just take what you advocate taking from them, you cool with that?

The problem is your "unborn child" label. There is no such thing. A fetus is not a child. You want to call it a child in order to equate it with a breathing, functioning infant, in order to elicit an emotional response. See, it is a matter of opinion - and a moral position. It is the epitome of trying legislate morality.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

Well I tell ya what hero, ask the hildabitch if her spawn is carrying her unborn grandchild and get back to me.

 

[initforme]

ps if adoption was made easier the number of abortions might decline. The hoops to jump through is ridiculous. My daughter adopted and found it easier to adopt from Russia...she tried I. The us but it never worked out. She has 3 biological and one adopted but all her real children.

 

[Czernobog]

Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really? You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life. How about I leave your shit alone, and just take what you advocate taking from them, you cool with that?

The problem is your "unborn child" label. There is no such thing. A fetus is not a child. You want to call it a child in order to equate it with a breathing, functioning infant, in order to elicit an emotional response. See, it is a matter of opinion - and a moral position. It is the epitome of trying legislate morality.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

Well I tell ya what hero, ask the hildabitch if her spawn is carrying her unborn grandchild and get back to me.

I have no idea who hildabitch is Sparky, and the personal opinion of one person is just that - an opinion. As soon as we start legislating opinions we're in trouble.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[mikegriffith1]

I am pro-choice, i.e., I believe the baby should have a say in the matter of whether or not he or she dies solely for the convenience of his or her mother.

You use the same kinds of sick arguments that pro-slavery apologists used in the 1850s to justify slavery. You display the same unwillingness to consider the victim as any kind of a human person, and you focus solely on the "rights" of the slaveholder (the woman) and the slave trader (the doctor).

And here are some links on the scientific evidence regarding the baby's development in his mother's womb:

Fetal Development -- From Conception to birth

Inside pregnancy: Weeks 1 to 9 | Video | BabyCenter

Inside pregnancy: Weeks 10 to 14 | Video | BabyCenter

 

[OKTexas]

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really? You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life. How about I leave your shit alone, and just take what you advocate taking from them, you cool with that?

The problem is your "unborn child" label. There is no such thing. A fetus is not a child. You want to call it a child in order to equate it with a breathing, functioning infant, in order to elicit an emotional response. See, it is a matter of opinion - and a moral position. It is the epitome of trying legislate morality.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

And that's where the linguistic gymnastics come into play. In order to feel better about what happens during an abortion, we cannot call what is being killed a living human being. Biologically, scientifically, that's what is in there.

No one suggests that what is being killed is genetically human. It is that "being" part that we have a problem with - as in a separate, biologically independent organism. Until, at least, the 25th week, it isn't. It has more in common with a cancer cluster - which is also biologically human - than it does a child. And most of us Pro-Choice activists - the rational ones, anyway - are perfectly fine with strict restrictions on those late-term abortions, which are extremely rare, anyway.

Sorry. The semantic gymnastics occurs on your end, trying to equate a cluster of cells with a child.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

Funny, the supreme court put viability at 23-24 weeks. See planed parenthood V. Casey. With medical advances since the Casey decision it could be as early as 19-20 weeks.

 

[Unkotare]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

.....

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

.....

Yes, I do.

Really? And how do you do that, pray tell? I can't wait to hear this…

Very simple: DON'T KILL THE PERSON.

In the natural course of events that person will grow and develop until he or she is ready to tell you whether he or she wants to live.

If that doesn't satisfy the characteristic bloodlust of liberalism, you can wait until the person is fully grown and then offer him or her the choice of whether or not to kill you. Fair enough? A hell of a lot more reasonable than the way you fucking ghouls do it now.

 

[initforme]

Another viable idea is to offer women a 5 thousand dollar stipend not to abort. Taxpayer funded. America is a no ey driven greed infested cesspool of people. No ey is their ultimate god. I bet that could work.

 

[Czernobog]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

.....

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

.....

Yes, I do.

Really? And how do you do that, pray tell? I can't wait to hear this…

Very simple: DON'T KILL THE PERSON.

In the natural course of events that person will grow and develop until he or she is ready to tell you whether he or she wants to live.

In other words, you're complete full of shit. A fetus which is not a person - as evidenced by your own admission that it is not a person capable of opinions, or communication until they are actually born - does not have any actual opinions, and you cannot communicate with a fetus.

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

I am pro-choice, i.e., I believe the baby should have a say in the matter of whether or not he or she dies solely for the convenience of his or her mother.

Oh loom. Another dishonest sophist who claims it is possible to ascertain the thoughts, opinions, and wishes of a fetus.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ptbw forever]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

.....

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

.....

Yes, I do.

Really? And how do you do that, pray tell? I can't wait to hear this…

Very simple: DON'T KILL THE PERSON.

In the natural course of events that person will grow and develop until he or she is ready to tell you whether he or she wants to live.

In other words, you're complete full of shit. A fetus which is not a person - as evidenced by your own admission that it is not a person capable of opinions, or communication until they are actually born - does not have any actual opinions, and you cannot communicate with a fetus.

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Babies can't formulate opinions either....

 

[Unkotare]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

.....

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

.....

Yes, I do.

Really? And how do you do that, pray tell? I can't wait to hear this…

Very simple: DON'T KILL THE PERSON.

In the natural course of events that person will grow and develop until he or she is ready to tell you whether he or she wants to live.

... A fetus which is not a person -....

You need to work on your reading skills, because I proved exactly the opposite of your irrational claim.

 

[Unkotare]

... - as evidenced by your own admission that it is not a person capable of opinions, or communication until they are actually born - does not have any actual opinions, and you cannot communicate with a fetus....

I never 'admitted' any of the untruths you posted above. Are you so insecure in your position that you have no other recourse than dishonesty?

 

[Katzndogz]

"Anti-choice" would be those who take ALL choices away from the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-laden members of society.


The pro-death crowd is extremely anti-choice.

.....

So, tell me, do you know of a way to ascertain the wishes of a fetus, or even the capability of a fetus to formulate an opinion, to make a choice?

.....

Yes, I do.

Really? And how do you do that, pray tell? I can't wait to hear this…

Very simple: DON'T KILL THE PERSON.

In the natural course of events that person will grow and develop until he or she is ready to tell you whether he or she wants to live.

In other words, you're complete full of shit. A fetus which is not a person - as evidenced by your own admission that it is not a person capable of opinions, or communication until they are actually born - does not have any actual opinions, and you cannot communicate with a fetus.

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

A fetus is a stage of human development not a separate species.