A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Bob Blaylock]

Ya know, this is what is wrong with this country. Liberals, and conservatives have always been ideologically divergent. But, ya know, when it has gotten to the point that one ideological group can just so cavalierly discuss the murderous slaughter of the "opposition", then that group has become so clearly extreme, and uncivilized that adult discourse, and exchange of ideas in the pursuit of compromise, and understanding is impossible.

I don't mind aggressive discussion, and debate. But you two jackasses have demonstrated that you are such raging extremist Right Wing loons that you are not even worthy of acknowledgement. HenryBHough, and Bob Blaylock: Welcome to my ignore pile, and do feel free to go fuck yourselves.

Putting cold-blooded murderers to death, if done by proper due process of law, is not “ the murderous slaughter of the ‘opposition’”. It's justice.

It's odd when you defend the slaughter of innocent children,and describe as “extreme” the position that wishes to prohibit and prevent this slaughter, and to bring murders to justice.

Surely, the true extreme is the position that defends this slaughter, and which opposes bringing cold-blooded murderers to proper justice.

 

[Unkotare]

What's the difference between these statements:

1. It's OK to kill the unborn for the good of the mother.

2. It's OK to kill liberals for the good of the country.

Feels to me like if one is OK then so is the other.

The latter is easier to justify, actually.

In the case of an unborn child, we do not know how that child will eventually turn out, whether that child will end up being an asset to society, or a burden.

In the case of a liberal, we know.

Surely, if it is justifiable to kill someone on the premise that they •may• become a burden on society, then it must be even more justifiable to kill someone who has proven to be a burden on society.

Ya know, this is what is wrong with this country. Liberals, and conservatives have always been ideologically divergent. But, ya know, when it has gotten to the point that one ideological group can just so cavalierly discuss the murderous slaughter of the "opposition", then that group has become so clearly extreme, and uncivilized that adult discourse, and exchange of ideas in the pursuit of compromise, and understanding is impossible.

I don't mind aggressive discussion, and debate. But you two jackasses have demonstrated that you are such raging extremist Right Wing loons that you are not even worthy of acknowledgement. HenryBHough, and Bob Blaylock: Welcome to my ignore pile, and do feel free to go fuck yourselves.

So much ducking, but where's the goose?









Or maybe it's 'tucking.'

 

[Czernobog]

What's the difference between these statements:

1. It's OK to kill the unborn for the good of the mother.

2. It's OK to kill liberals for the good of the country.

Feels to me like if one is OK then so is the other.

The latter is easier to justify, actually.

In the case of an unborn child, we do not know how that child will eventually turn out, whether that child will end up being an asset to society, or a burden.

In the case of a liberal, we know.

Surely, if it is justifiable to kill someone on the premise that they •may• become a burden on society, then it must be even more justifiable to kill someone who has proven to be a burden on society.

Ya know, this is what is wrong with this country. Liberals, and conservatives have always been ideologically divergent. But, ya know, when it has gotten to the point that one ideological group can just so cavalierly discuss the murderous slaughter of the "opposition", then that group has become so clearly extreme, and uncivilized that adult discourse, and exchange of ideas in the pursuit of compromise, and understanding is impossible.

I don't mind aggressive discussion, and debate. But you two jackasses have demonstrated that you are such raging extremist Right Wing loons that you are not even worthy of acknowledgement. HenryBHough, and Bob Blaylock: Welcome to my ignore pile, and do feel free to go fuck yourselves.

So much ducking, but where's the goose?









Or maybe it's 'tucking.'

Funny. You seemed to have missed the part where I answered the smartassed question asked. But, you spend so much time with your head up your own ass, I can understand why you might have a hard time keeping up.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Unkotare]

.......
Funny. You seemed to have missed the part where I answered the ....... question asked.........

I didn't miss the part where you whined like a bitch and stuck your fingers in your ears.

 

[Czernobog]

.......
Funny. You seemed to have missed the part where I answered the ....... question asked.........

I didn't miss the part where you whined like a bitch and stuck your fingers in your ears.

If you say so. Tell us, what colour is the sky in your sky.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Unkotare]

.......
Funny. You seemed to have missed the part where I answered the ....... question asked.........

I didn't miss the part where you whined like a bitch and stuck your fingers in your ears.

If you say so. ....

It is so.

 

[Czernobog]

.......
Funny. You seemed to have missed the part where I answered the ....... question asked.........

I didn't miss the part where you whined like a bitch and stuck your fingers in your ears.

If you say so. ....

It is so.

You missed a part. Lemme help you out:

Just what colour is the sky in your reality?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Centinel]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

If two or more people conspire to commit a crime, they are each equally guilty for that crime.

 

[oreo]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

I would like to know what punishment you are going to deliver to the male that impregnated this woman? And then you wonder why women (the largest voting block in this country have a very sour opinion of the Republican party.)

Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History

Abortion does not belong anywhere on a political platform. It's an already settled 44 year old U.S. Supreme court issue. This State Senator in Oklahoma wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars in his pursuit to bring up this ridiculous bill. A bill that had it passed would have been immediately slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court, costing the taxpayers a lot more money.

There are legitimate REASONS for abortions. Women are really much more than just baby factories.

1. Is the Republican party going to intervene into a doctor patient relationship when a woman, who may already have two kids at home to raise, & tell her husband and her kids that their mother needs to die, and they can raise the baby by themselves? Otherwise she will be charged with murder?
2. Is the Republican party going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeatedly raped by a relative, that she needs to risk her life again to give birth to a baby? Otherwise she will be charged with a crime.
3. Is the Republican party, going to tell a lucky to be alive woman and her family and possibly her husband who may object, that she needs to carry a rape baby to full term. Otherwise she will be charged with a crime.

You have NO RIGHT what-so-ever to intervene into the private, personal decisions of women and their families in this country. You have NO RIGHT to intervene in the doctor patient relationship on what type of birth control devices a doctors patient uses. We can only Thank God that there is a U.S. Supreme court. BTW it was a right leaning court that gave us Roe v Wade, and it's been a right leaning court for decades, and nothing, absolutely nothing has changed on a woman's right to choose.

Since politicians are not running for the next U.S. Supreme court nominee, their personal opinions on abortion are about as significant as a mosquito on an elephants ass. Just like yours is. You cannot legislate your version of morality through Washington D.C.

This Oklahoma Senator needs to be recalled for dereliction of duty. He certainly doesn't belong in any elected official position.

 

[ptbw forever]

What's the difference between these statements:

1. It's OK to kill the unborn for the good of the mother.

2. It's OK to kill liberals for the good of the country.

Feels to me like if one is OK then so is the other.

The latter is easier to justify, actually.

In the case of an unborn child, we do not know how that child will eventually turn out, whether that child will end up being an asset to society, or a burden.

In the case of a liberal, we know.

Surely, if it is justifiable to kill someone on the premise that they •may• become a burden on society, then it must be even more justifiable to kill someone who has proven to be a burden on society.

Ya know, this is what is wrong with this country. Liberals, and conservatives have always been ideologically divergent. But, ya know, when it has gotten to the point that one ideological group can just so cavalierly discuss the murderous slaughter of the "opposition", then that group has become so clearly extreme, and uncivilized that adult discourse, and exchange of ideas in the pursuit of compromise, and understanding is impossible.

I don't mind aggressive discussion, and debate. But you two jackasses have demonstrated that you are such raging extremist Right Wing loons that you are not even worthy of acknowledgement. HenryBHough, and Bob Blaylock: Welcome to my ignore pile, and do feel free to go fuck yourselves.

They have a long way to go before they can match Left Wing loons on tumblr and Twitter(and the web in general).

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

I would like to know what punishment are you going to deliver to the male that impregnated this woman? And then you wonder why women (the largest voting block in this country have a very sour opinion of the Republican party.)

Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History

Abortion does not belong anywhere on a political platform. It's an already settled 44 year old U.S. Supreme court issue. The State Senator in Oklahoma wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars in his pursuit to bring up this ridiculous bill. A bill that had it passed would have been immediately slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court, costing the taxpayers a lot more money.

There are legitimate REASONS for abortions. Women are really much more than just baby factories.

1. Is the Republican party going to intervene into a doctor patient relationship when a woman, who may already have two kids at home to raise,& tell her husband and her kids that their mother needs to die, and they can raise the baby by themselves? Otherwise she will be charged with murder?
2. Is the Republican party going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeatedly raped by a relative, that she needs to risk her life again to give birth to a baby? Otherwise she will be charged with a crime.
3. Is the Republican party, going to tell a lucky to be alive woman and her family who may object, that she needs to carry a rape baby to full term. Otherwise she will be charged with a crime.

You have NO RIGHT what-so-ever to intervene into the personal decisions of the citizens of this country. You have NO RIGHT to intervene in the doctor patient relationship on what type of birth control devices a doctors patient uses. We can only Thank God that there is a U.S. Supreme court. BTW it was a right leaning court that gave us Roe v Wade, and it's been a right leaning court for decades, and nothing, absolutely nothing has changed on a woman's right to choose.

Since politicians are not running for the next U.S. Supreme court nominee, their personal opinions on abortion are about as significant as a mosquito on an elephants ass.

This Oklahoma Senator needs to be recalled for dereliction of duty.

I could not agree with you more. The whole point of my question was that social conservatives cannot follow their position on abortion to its logical conclusion without taking a position that would ultimately piss off the majority of women in this country. Hell, even conservative women would start to call when they realized that they were supporting a position that would, ultimately, criminalize women.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[oreo]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

I would like to know what punishment are you going to deliver to the male that impregnated this woman? And then you wonder why women (the largest voting block in this country have a very sour opinion of the Republican party.)

Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History

Abortion does not belong anywhere on a political platform. It's an already settled 44 year old U.S. Supreme court issue. The State Senator in Oklahoma wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars in his pursuit to bring up this ridiculous bill. A bill that had it passed would have been immediately slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court, costing the taxpayers a lot more money.

There are legitimate REASONS for abortions. Women are really much more than just baby factories.

1. Is the Republican party going to intervene into a doctor patient relationship when a woman, who may already have two kids at home to raise,& tell her husband and her kids that their mother needs to die, and they can raise the baby by themselves? Otherwise she will be charged with murder?
2. Is the Republican party going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeatedly raped by a relative, that she needs to risk her life again to give birth to a baby? Otherwise she will be charged with a crime.
3. Is the Republican party, going to tell a lucky to be alive woman and her family who may object, that she needs to carry a rape baby to full term. Otherwise she will be charged with a crime.

You have NO RIGHT what-so-ever to intervene into the personal decisions of the citizens of this country. You have NO RIGHT to intervene in the doctor patient relationship on what type of birth control devices a doctors patient uses. We can only Thank God that there is a U.S. Supreme court. BTW it was a right leaning court that gave us Roe v Wade, and it's been a right leaning court for decades, and nothing, absolutely nothing has changed on a woman's right to choose.

Since politicians are not running for the next U.S. Supreme court nominee, their personal opinions on abortion are about as significant as a mosquito on an elephants ass.

This Oklahoma Senator needs to be recalled for dereliction of duty.

I could not agree with you more. The whole point of my question was that social conservatives cannot follow their position on abortion to its logical conclusion without taking a position that would ultimately piss off the majority of women in this country. Hell, even conservative women would start to call when they realized that they were supporting a position that would, ultimately, criminalize women.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They did a great job of pissing women off in 2012. It was women that gave Barack Obama a second term. Mitt Romney's fate was sealed long before he even became the nominee of the party. The Republican platform was about abortion, (something they couldn't change anyway.) Obviously Republicans didn't learn anything from that loss, so they lined the candidate platform with several Knuckle dragging neanderthals again in 2016, that in no way women would have ever voted for.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump

Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Rick Perry & Bobby Jindhal. There is no candidate that can win a National election today, if they do not give ALL 3 exceptions. For the life of the mother, rape & incest.

Carly Fiorina, one of the best candidates in this race, fell on the abortion sword over baby parts. She was trying to get the Evangelical vote, and it backfired on her.

All of the above candidates, WOMEN would have aborted in the voting booth.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I would like to know what punishment you are going to deliver to the male that impregnated this woman?

·
·
·​

1. Is the Republican party going to intervene into a doctor patient relationship when a woman, who may already have two kids at home to raise, & tell her husband and her kids that their mother needs to die, and they can raise the baby by themselves? Otherwise she will be charged with murder?

If, instead of a preborn child, it was a toddler that the mother was responsible for having murdered, how would you answer those questions?

Do you let her get away with it, because of the impact that bringing her to justice would have on her husband and her other children?

And, assuming the husband had no willing or knowing part in his wife's murder of their two-year-old, or perhaps even tried to stop her, what charges do you think should be brought against him?

Abortion does not belong anywhere on a political platform. It's an already settled 44 year old U.S. Supreme court issue. This State Senator in Oklahoma wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars in his pursuit to bring up this ridiculous bill. A bill that had it passed would have been immediately slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court, costing the taxpayers a lot more money.

Slavery was the law of the land in this nation, for much longer than that. And the Republican party “wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars” to bring that to an end, and subsequently, to bring an end to the “Jim Crow” laws as well, and was repeatedly slapped down by the Supreme Court. By your degenerate way of thinking, they should have given up, and black people should remain slaves to this day.

2. Is the Republican party going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeatedly raped by a relative, that she needs to risk her life again to give birth to a baby? Otherwise she will be charged with a crime.
3. Is the Republican party, going to tell a lucky to be alive woman and her family and possibly her husband who may object, that she needs to carry a rape baby to full term. Otherwise she will be charged with a crime.

“Rape baby”. What a horrible, hateful, bigoted name to call a human being. This is a precious, innocent, defenseless child you're talking about, one who has committed no crime, and certainly does not deserve to be put to death for a crime committed by his father. Your hateful reference to a child only goes to show just how evil and depraved your position is, and how evil and depraved you must be to hold it.

You have NO RIGHT what-so-ever to intervene into the private, personal decisions of women and their families in this country. You have NO RIGHT to intervene in the doctor patient relationship on what type of birth control devices a doctors patient uses. We can only Thank God that there is a U.S. Supreme court. BTW it was a right leaning court that gave us Roe v Wade, and it's been a right leaning court for decades, and nothing, absolutely nothing has changed on a woman's right to choose.

Since politicians are not running for the next U.S. Supreme court nominee, their personal opinions on abortion are about as significant as a mosquito on an elephants ass. Just like yours is. You cannot legislate your version of morality through Washington D.C.

This Oklahoma Senator needs to be recalled for dereliction of duty. He certainly doesn't belong in any elected official position.

So, if a mother decides that she has too many children, she should be allowed to cull her brood, kill whichever of them she thinks are excessive? Does government have no duty, no right, to intervene in such a decision that a woman might make, with regard to her personal, private decisions regarding her family?

 

[oreo]

I would like to know what punishment you are going to deliver to the male that impregnated this woman?

·
·
·​

1. Is the Republican party going to intervene into a doctor patient relationship when a woman, who may already have two kids at home to raise, & tell her husband and her kids that their mother needs to die, and they can raise the baby by themselves? Otherwise she will be charged with murder?

If, instead of a preborn child, it was a toddler that the mother was responsible for having murdered, how would you answer those questions?

Do you let her get away with it, because of the impact that bringing her to justice would have on her husband and her other children?

And, assuming the husband had no willing or knowing part in his wife's murder of their two-year-old, or perhaps even tried to stop her, what charges do you think should be brought against him?

Abortion does not belong anywhere on a political platform. It's an already settled 44 year old U.S. Supreme court issue. This State Senator in Oklahoma wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars in his pursuit to bring up this ridiculous bill. A bill that had it passed would have been immediately slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court, costing the taxpayers a lot more money.

Slavery was the law of the land in this nation, for much longer than that. And the Republican party “wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars” to bring that to an end, and subsequently, to bring an end to the “Jim Crow” laws as well, and was repeatedly slapped down by the Supreme Court. By your degenerate way of thinking, they should have given up, and black people should remain slaves to this day.

2. Is the Republican party going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeatedly raped by a relative, that she needs to risk her life again to give birth to a baby? Otherwise she will be charged with a crime.
3. Is the Republican party, going to tell a lucky to be alive woman and her family and possibly her husband who may object, that she needs to carry a rape baby to full term. Otherwise she will be charged with a crime.

“Rape baby”. What a horrible, hateful, bigoted name to call a human being. This is a precious, innocent, defenseless child you're talking about, one who has committed no crime, and certainly does not deserve to be put to death for a crime committed by his father. Your hateful reference to a child only goes to show just how evil and depraved your position is, and how evil and depraved you must be to hold it.

You have NO RIGHT what-so-ever to intervene into the private, personal decisions of women and their families in this country. You have NO RIGHT to intervene in the doctor patient relationship on what type of birth control devices a doctors patient uses. We can only Thank God that there is a U.S. Supreme court. BTW it was a right leaning court that gave us Roe v Wade, and it's been a right leaning court for decades, and nothing, absolutely nothing has changed on a woman's right to choose.

Since politicians are not running for the next U.S. Supreme court nominee, their personal opinions on abortion are about as significant as a mosquito on an elephants ass. Just like yours is. You cannot legislate your version of morality through Washington D.C.

This Oklahoma Senator needs to be recalled for dereliction of duty. He certainly doesn't belong in any elected official position.

So, if a mother decides that she has too many children, she should be allowed to cull her brood, kill whichever of them she thinks are excessive? Does government have no duty, no right, to intervene in such a decision that a woman might make, with regard to her personal, private decisions regarding her family?

Babies in the womb do not have the same rights as babies out of the womb. A Personhood bill, I will describe to you, is a bill that has been soundly defeated 4 times in the State of Colorado, and for very good reason. The Personhood bill was put on our state ballot 4 times by abortion activists--in an effort to stop all abortions in the State of Colorado.

Since our laws do not discriminate. A woman who has a common Miscarriage would have to be investigated for foul play, and an autopsy would have to be performed. You get into a fender bumper accident with a pregnant woman, and the baby in the womb dies you could be charged with murder or manslaughter. A woman has an accident and falls down stairs and the baby in the womb dies, she could be charged. A doctor or nurse delivering a still born baby could be charged with a crime. A baby in the womb is a very fragile life, and we certainly don't need to be filling up our criminal courts with miscarriage's, illness or accidents, nor filling up our prisons with innocent people.

Who supported a Personhood amendment? Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Now them supposedly being "experts" regarding the U.S. Constitution. obviously never looked beyond the tip of their noses at the circumstances that it would have created.
Rand Paul’s Personhood Problem - The New Yorker

And apparently you don't understand it either.

Again, abortion is an already settled U.S. Supreme court issue, and it belongs no where on any political platform. It's clear that women have been wholly offended by abortion activists and it shows up in National Elections. If you can't win women, you won't win the White House.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Babies in the womb do not have the same rights as babies out of the womb.

·
·
·​

Again, abortion is an already settled U.S. Supreme court issue, and it belongs no where on any political platform.

Right. Just as black men once did not have the same rights as white men, and that also was once “… an already settled U.S. Supreme court issue…“. And that was just as wrong as this is.

 

[Mac1958]

I am very pro-life...And if a doctor performed one unlawfully, his license should be revoked for a time. The woman? I do not support incarceration for the women or the doctor.

I've worked my way through a few pages here, and this seems to be the clearest answer I've seen.

So you're saying that the punishment would be given to the doctor who performs the procedure - in form of temporary license revocation - and not to the woman. Is that fair?
.

 

[Czernobog]

I take issue with a few of your positions. Allow me to address them:

I am very pro-life...A child is the product of sexual intercourse, that too many people engage in as a form of recreation. It's purpose is to create children and when a child is created, we act so surprised.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you have a rather archaic, and outdated view of sex. "Go forth. Be fruitful, and multiply". Trust me, we did that. In spades. The view that the only purpose of sex is to procreate is, I suppose, fine in a society where continuation of the species is of grave concern. That's not a real issue for modern society. I don't think we are in any danger of extinction, so procreation is somewhat less important than it once was. However, sex is still an extremely enjoyable activity. So, people continue to have sex, even if creating progeny is not a paramount concern at the time.

If you had used birth control, which can be obtained free of charge, then that would not have happened. When confronted by a child, they want the taxpayer to pay for killing that child they created by their lack of responsibility and outright stupidity. Or they want a blanket 'get out of parenthood' card, with the ability to abort the child. Another building block in the total destruction of personal responsibility. Let the government handle my problems.

Couple of problems here. First, you are about the third person to suggest, or imply, that no one, or very few are using birth control. This is statistically simply not true. According to, at least, one study, 99% of women between the ages of 15 to 44 who had a sexual experience used at least one form of contraception. Over 60% of women report currently using contraception. Clearly, we do not have a problem with the majority of couples having sex not using protection. It is estimated that some 61 million women are currently sexually active. It is agreed by most professionals that contraceptives, when used properly, are 95% effective. Woohoo. Guess what? Even if 100% of women were using contraceptives, that would still leave over 3 million women a year - who did exactly what you claim they should have been doing - with pregnancies they did not want. Finally, no one is asking for tax-payers to pay for anything. In fact the Hyde Amendment specifically prevents abortions to be funded with tax-payer money. Many anti-abortionists seem to think that because Planned Parenthood receives federal funds, and they perform - in some locations - abortions, that those tax dollars must be being used to fund abortions. What they fail to realize is that Planned Parenthood does many more things besides abortions, such as women's wellness checks, breast cancer screenings, counseling, and even providing birth control. It is these other services that tax-payer dollars are helping to fund, not abortions.

I support the use of abortion in the case of incest or rape, reluctantly, but I do support it. I believe that if I had my way, abortions would be illegal, except in the case of incest or rape. And if a doctor performed one unlawfully, his license should be revoked for a time. The woman? I do not support incarceration for the women or the doctor. Is abortion murder? Indeed, I believe it is. We do not advocate the same punishment for those who kill another human being in a traffic accident, or unintentionally. There are degrees of murder. I realize that for the loony left, the concern for 'me' overrides all other considerations. Abortion kills a human. It is just that simple.

I'm glad to see that you don't want anyone going to jail, however, I fail to understand your position on the responsibility for abortions. Why should the doctor have to lose his license over performing an abortion, but you see no reason for the woman who contracted the doctor to perform the abortion to suffer any consequences for her decision?

 

[Mertex]

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?

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.

Roe v Wade was passed by the Supreme Court...so I don't understand what your point is.

All rulings issued by the Supreme Court are final, unless they are overturned by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court: the Laws of the Land


In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy.
Supreme Court legalizes abortion - Jan 22, 1973 - HISTORY.com

Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder.

Murder is a crime and is punishable by law. Abortion is legal, therefore not punishable by law, ergo, not 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.

It's not a baby, it is a fetus, until it is born. All of that (except viability) was considered at the time the law was passed. Viability was not that strong at 23 weeks when Roe v Wade was passed as I am sure we have made major medical advances. Most states have laws limiting elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.

Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken.

Many eggs that are fertilized are sold for consumption. So, while your statement may be partially true, it is not completely true, and if you were to buy eggs directly from a farmer, you most certainly will be eating a fertilized egg.


One question floating among avid egg-eaters is if fertilized eggs are safe for consumption. The answer is yes. It is perfectly okay to eat fertilized eggs. Also, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, once the fertilized egg is stored inside the fridge, the embryo no longer undergoes any change or development. Rest assured that you can eat your fertilized chicken eggs just fine like the unfertilized ones.
Facts about Fertilized Chicken Eggs : Fertile Chicken Eggs | Chicken Egg Incubators


We sell fertilized chicken eggs,
Fertilized eggs for hatching and eating

And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.

Well, it appears that you don't really know as much as you think you do......would fill volumes....

 

[Unkotare]

.......
Funny. You seemed to have missed the part where I answered the ....... question asked.........

I didn't miss the part where you whined like a bitch and stuck your fingers in your ears.

If you say so. ....

It is so.

.......

Just what colour is the sky...... ?

"Color," Nigel.

 

[Czernobog]

.......
Funny. You seemed to have missed the part where I answered the ....... question asked.........

I didn't miss the part where you whined like a bitch and stuck your fingers in your ears.

If you say so. ....

It is so.

.......

Just what colour is the sky...... ?

"Color," Nigel.

Well, at least you admit you exist in your own reality from everyone else...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk