Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

[TemplarKormac]

Never said that, either. In fact, I've clearly said that the man should be held responsible.. because that's the law.

But I know your argument is weak and you are trying your best to pretend that women don't decide this issue whether you want them to or not.

Weren't you telling me a while back that a man should stay out of it? Sure thing boss, soon as you can explain to me this double standard of yours.

Not a double standard at all.

1. the only one who gets to decide the abortion issue is the one with the womb.

2.If she doesn't want to be pregnant, she should be allowed an abortion, no questions asked.

3. If she decides she wants to carry the baby to term, the dumbass who knocked her up should pay.

4. It's actually a pretty sensible position. The unfortunate thing is, we have too many men who do walk away from their responsiblities, and a government that lets them.

1. Sure, and there wouldn't be anything in that womb to abort without first being fertilized by a male.

2. Or she could just not have sex until she's ready. It's quite simple.

3. What if that dumbass was actually a responsible father? In that case he didn't "knock her up" it would have been consensual. And then again, not every woman is victimized or inflicted with a child as you come to think. You ignore simple biology for that. You can't make baby without the man or his sperm.

4. Doesn't that compete with the idea that men should not be allowed to make decisions on the child that they helped give life to? Yeah that's a double standard.

Your argument is full of holes. Lets not press this issue any further. Neither one of us knows what it's like to be a woman, so how can we assume to know? All I can say is, once again; it takes two to love, two to make it, and two to raise it.

 

[JoeB131]

Weren't you telling me a while back that a man should stay out of it? Sure thing boss, soon as you can explain to me this double standard of yours.

Not a double standard at all.

1. the only one who gets to decide the abortion issue is the one with the womb.

2.If she doesn't want to be pregnant, she should be allowed an abortion, no questions asked.

3. If she decides she wants to carry the baby to term, the dumbass who knocked her up should pay.

4. It's actually a pretty sensible position. The unfortunate thing is, we have too many men who do walk away from their responsiblities, and a government that lets them.

1. Sure, and there wouldn't be anything in that womb to abort without first being fertilized by a male.

2. Or she could just not have sex until she's ready. It's quite simple.

3. What if that dumbass was actually a responsible father? In that case he didn't "knock her up" it would have been consensual. And then again, not every woman is victimized or inflicted with a child as you come to think. You ignore simple biology for that. You can't make baby without the man or his sperm.

4. Doesn't that compete with the idea that men should not be allowed to make decisions on the child that they helped give life to? Yeah that's a double standard.

Your argument is full of holes. Lets not press this issue any further. Neither one of us knows what it's like to be a woman, so how can we assume to know? All I can say is, once again; it takes two to love, two to make it, and two to raise it.

You do realize changing the text of my post is against the rules, right? Did you even bother to read the rules before you started posting here?

1- There wouldn't be any fertilization is he hadn't stuck his wang in her whoo-ha..

2- Again, that would be her choice. It's her choice to have sex, it's her choice to have a baby. Probably for the best. If men had the babies, the birth rate would drop.

3- Not an issue. he lost all right to that sperm when it left his body.

4- No double standard at all.

 

[Wicked Jester]

For the 10,001th time to the uninformed dumb masses:
I know of NO ONE that is pro abortion.
Abortion was legal when this great nation was founded. However, slaves were subject to the rules of their owners and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate their pregnancies.
When abortion was "illegal" doctors were never arrested unless a woman died and the women were never arrersted.
So much for abortion being illegal. All it did was raise the price by multiples to obtain a "legal" or any abortion.
"I performed the abortion for the health and safety of the mother" was the cry of the doctor as he pocketed the cash. WELL DUH! And no other doctor would ever testify against that diagnosis EVER so no district attorney could EVER prosecute an abortionist.
Silly facts always get in the way of dumb ass ideology.
And so what are we left with if Roe was over turned YESTERDAY sports fans:
Now listen up real good all you jabronies as I tell you for the 10,001st time:
The abortion laws will go back to the states.
Some states will ban it OUTRIGHT, no exceptions.
Some states will ban it with few exceptions.
Some states will ban it with many exceptions.
Some states will allow it with many rules and guidelines.
Some states will allow it with few rules and guidelines.
Some states will allow it with outright with NO rules or guidelines.
So what we would be left with is if a woman with $$$ lives in a state that bans abortion outright with no exceptions all she does is drive or get on a plane and travel to a state that allows it with NO rules or guidelines and obtains her abortion.
And poor women that live in a state that bans it outright are FORCED to have the baby that in most cases they DO NOT WANT and DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
NOTHING changes except back to slavery once again.
Americans are dumb asses. NO LAW stops stupid. Doctors ARE ALWAYS going to perform abortions FOR CASH and NO LAW stops them, ever.
The Founders were SMART MEN. Current right wing KOOK politicians pander to the dumb masses as there is no shortage of them.

Well, that was about a longwinded waste of space and bandwidth.

 

[Gadawg73]

For the 10,001th time to the uninformed dumb masses:
I know of NO ONE that is pro abortion.
Abortion was legal when this great nation was founded. However, slaves were subject to the rules of their owners and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate their pregnancies.
When abortion was "illegal" doctors were never arrested unless a woman died and the women were never arrersted.
So much for abortion being illegal. All it did was raise the price by multiples to obtain a "legal" or any abortion.
"I performed the abortion for the health and safety of the mother" was the cry of the doctor as he pocketed the cash. WELL DUH! And no other doctor would ever testify against that diagnosis EVER so no district attorney could EVER prosecute an abortionist.
Silly facts always get in the way of dumb ass ideology.
And so what are we left with if Roe was over turned YESTERDAY sports fans:
Now listen up real good all you jabronies as I tell you for the 10,001st time:
The abortion laws will go back to the states.
Some states will ban it OUTRIGHT, no exceptions.
Some states will ban it with few exceptions.
Some states will ban it with many exceptions.
Some states will allow it with many rules and guidelines.
Some states will allow it with few rules and guidelines.
Some states will allow it with outright with NO rules or guidelines.
So what we would be left with is if a woman with $$$ lives in a state that bans abortion outright with no exceptions all she does is drive or get on a plane and travel to a state that allows it with NO rules or guidelines and obtains her abortion.
And poor women that live in a state that bans it outright are FORCED to have the baby that in most cases they DO NOT WANT and DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
NOTHING changes except back to slavery once again.
Americans are dumb asses. NO LAW stops stupid. Doctors ARE ALWAYS going to perform abortions FOR CASH and NO LAW stops them, ever.
The Founders were SMART MEN. Current right wing KOOK politicians pander to the dumb masses as there is no shortage of them.

Well, that was about a longwinded waste of space and bandwidth.

You can refute any of it.
Facts sure are a bitch when they do not match one's ideology.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not a double standard at all.

1. the only one who gets to decide the abortion issue is the one with the womb.

2.If she doesn't want to be pregnant, she should be allowed an abortion, no questions asked.

3. If she decides she wants to carry the baby to term, the dumbass who knocked her up should pay.

4. It's actually a pretty sensible position. The unfortunate thing is, we have too many men who do walk away from their responsiblities, and a government that lets them.

1. Sure, and there wouldn't be anything in that womb to abort without first being fertilized by a male.

2. Or she could just not have sex until she's ready. It's quite simple.

3. What if that dumbass was actually a responsible father? In that case he didn't "knock her up" it would have been consensual. And then again, not every woman is victimized or inflicted with a child as you come to think. You ignore simple biology for that. You can't make baby without the man or his sperm.

4. Doesn't that compete with the idea that men should not be allowed to make decisions on the child that they helped give life to? Yeah that's a double standard.

Your argument is full of holes. Lets not press this issue any further. Neither one of us knows what it's like to be a woman, so how can we assume to know? All I can say is, once again; it takes two to love, two to make it, and two to raise it.

You do realize changing the text of my post is against the rules, right? Did you even bother to read the rules before you started posting here?

1- There wouldn't be any fertilization is he hadn't stuck his wang in her whoo-ha..

2- Again, that would be her choice. It's her choice to have sex, it's her choice to have a baby. Probably for the best. If men had the babies, the birth rate would drop.

3- Not an issue. he lost all right to that sperm when it left his body.

4- No double standard at all.

Initial - I didn't change any of the words in your post. Your intent is clear as day, and I'm sorry you think it's wrong to be corrected; however that is what you are. If me beating you senseless in an argument is against the rules, that is simply because it is wholly embarrassing for you...not because I broke any rules. Learn to take one on the chin like the rest of us do when we are clearly wrong.

1. There wouldn't be any fertilization had she chosen to remain celebate, how hard is that for you to understand? It works both ways, contrary to popular belief.

2. This sarcasm carries with it no argument. You must think women reproduce asexually or independent of a man. You really should have paid attention in Biology class.

3. It is an issue, that's still his sperm you clueless tool, HIS genetic material!

4. Plenty of a double standard. Men have no say but are to take responsibility of a child whose fate it was not theirs to determine. Sit back for a while and think about how little sense that should make to you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

For the 10,001th time to the uninformed dumb masses:
I know of NO ONE that is pro abortion.
Abortion was legal when this great nation was founded. However, slaves were subject to the rules of their owners and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate their pregnancies.
When abortion was "illegal" doctors were never arrested unless a woman died and the women were never arrersted.
So much for abortion being illegal. All it did was raise the price by multiples to obtain a "legal" or any abortion.
"I performed the abortion for the health and safety of the mother" was the cry of the doctor as he pocketed the cash. WELL DUH! And no other doctor would ever testify against that diagnosis EVER so no district attorney could EVER prosecute an abortionist.
Silly facts always get in the way of dumb ass ideology.
And so what are we left with if Roe was over turned YESTERDAY sports fans:
Now listen up real good all you jabronies as I tell you for the 10,001st time:
The abortion laws will go back to the states.
Some states will ban it OUTRIGHT, no exceptions.
Some states will ban it with few exceptions.
Some states will ban it with many exceptions.
Some states will allow it with many rules and guidelines.
Some states will allow it with few rules and guidelines.
Some states will allow it with outright with NO rules or guidelines.
So what we would be left with is if a woman with $$$ lives in a state that bans abortion outright with no exceptions all she does is drive or get on a plane and travel to a state that allows it with NO rules or guidelines and obtains her abortion.
And poor women that live in a state that bans it outright are FORCED to have the baby that in most cases they DO NOT WANT and DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
NOTHING changes except back to slavery once again.
Americans are dumb asses. NO LAW stops stupid. Doctors ARE ALWAYS going to perform abortions FOR CASH and NO LAW stops them, ever.
The Founders were SMART MEN. Current right wing KOOK politicians pander to the dumb masses as there is no shortage of them.

Well, that was about a longwinded waste of space and bandwidth.

You can refute any of it.
Facts sure are a bitch when they do not match one's ideology.

Funny how you say for the "10,001st" time these things, but have no facts or links to back them up. We don't make factual assertions here without first making sure we can refute them. Try harder.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

Initial - I didn't change any of the words in your post. Your intent is clear as day, and I'm sorry you think it's wrong to be corrected; however that is what you are.

1. There wouldn't be any fertilization had she chosen to remain celebate, how hard is that for you to understand? It works both ways, contrary to popular belief.

2. This sarcasm carries with it no argument. You must think women reproduce asexually or independent of a man. You really should have paid attention in Biology class.

3. It is an issue, that's still his sperm you clueless tool.

4. Plenty of a double standard. Men have no say but are to take responsibility of a child whose fate it was not theirs to determine. Sit back for a while and think about how little sense that should make to you.

Guy, you can't change ANYTHING in the post. That's the point.

She's got the uterus, she's driving the car. Deal with it.

If she says- "I'm having an abortion. Deal with it." You deal with it.

If she says- "I'm having the baby, get out your checkbook. Deal with it." you deal with that.

And frankly, that's how it should be.

If men had pouches like seahorses and carried the baby for half the pregnancy, maybe you'd have a point, but we didn't go that way on the evolutionary chain.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well, that was about a longwinded waste of space and bandwidth.

You can refute any of it.
Facts sure are a bitch when they do not match one's ideology.

Funny how you say for the "10,001st" time these things, but have no facts or links to back them up. We don't make factual assertions here without first making sure we can refute them. Try harder.

I need a link to prove I have stated something in my life?
What in my facts do you claim is false?
That was the law BEFORE Roe or are you too young to know any better?

I oppose abortion but as a strict conservative I FEAR giving control of the lives of citizens to government and give government the power to decide who gets an abortion and who doesn't.

Study some history and get back to us.
But I DO have a link to prove without any doubt that Big Foot is for real and Elvis has 3 as pets.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

You can refute any of it.
Facts sure are a bitch when they do not match one's ideology.

Funny how you say for the "10,001st" time these things, but have no facts or links to back them up. We don't make factual assertions here without first making sure we can refute them. Try harder.

I need a link to prove I have stated something in my life?
What in my facts do you claim is false?
That was the law BEFORE Roe or are you too young to know any better?

I oppose abortion but as a strict conservative I FEAR giving control of the lives of citizens to government and give government the power to decide who gets an abortion and who doesn't.

Study some history and get back to us.
But I DO have a link to prove without any doubt that Big Foot is for real and Elvis has 3 as pets.

lulz

Please gtfo out of here with that. Governments can and do restrict people's "personal behavior/actions/whatever you want to call it" in order to prevent one individual from harming another. It's odd that liberals understand this everywhere EXCEPT for abortion, where suddenly the government has no "right" to restrict certain actions.

BTW> The government wouldn't decide who gets one and who doesn't, but under what circumstance you can and cannot get one. That's a big fundamental difference, and before you call someone a dumbass you sure as hell better make sure you know what you're talking about.

 

[Gadawg73]

Funny how you say for the "10,001st" time these things, but have no facts or links to back them up. We don't make factual assertions here without first making sure we can refute them. Try harder.

I need a link to prove I have stated something in my life?
What in my facts do you claim is false?
That was the law BEFORE Roe or are you too young to know any better?

I oppose abortion but as a strict conservative I FEAR giving control of the lives of citizens to government and give government the power to decide who gets an abortion and who doesn't.

Study some history and get back to us.
But I DO have a link to prove without any doubt that Big Foot is for real and Elvis has 3 as pets.

lulz

Please gtfo out of here with that. Governments can and do restrict people's "personal behavior/actions/whatever you want to call it" in order to prevent one individual from harming another. It's odd that liberals understand this everywhere EXCEPT for abortion, where suddenly the government has no "right" to restrict certain actions.

BTW> The government wouldn't decide who gets one and who doesn't, but under what circumstance you can and cannot get one. That's a big fundamental difference, and before you call someone a dumbass you sure as hell better make sure you know what you're talking about.

I am not a liberal Moe. Been voting Republican most all the time since 1972.
You may favor government to control your life but my conservative background makes me mistrust government.
Only a dumb ass believes any law will stop abortions.
Wealthy women will get them 100% of the time easily.
"For the health and safety of the mother" will be the reason the doctor will give everytime.
And who will question that and kindly please explain how ANY LAW stops that.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[koshergrl]

I love the calibre of men that are drawn to these threads. Men who want babies dead and who think women are, by nature, promiscuous and criminal.

 

[Katzndogz]

I need a link to prove I have stated something in my life?
What in my facts do you claim is false?
That was the law BEFORE Roe or are you too young to know any better?

I oppose abortion but as a strict conservative I FEAR giving control of the lives of citizens to government and give government the power to decide who gets an abortion and who doesn't.

Study some history and get back to us.
But I DO have a link to prove without any doubt that Big Foot is for real and Elvis has 3 as pets.

lulz

Please gtfo out of here with that. Governments can and do restrict people's "personal behavior/actions/whatever you want to call it" in order to prevent one individual from harming another. It's odd that liberals understand this everywhere EXCEPT for abortion, where suddenly the government has no "right" to restrict certain actions.

BTW> The government wouldn't decide who gets one and who doesn't, but under what circumstance you can and cannot get one. That's a big fundamental difference, and before you call someone a dumbass you sure as hell better make sure you know what you're talking about.

I am not a liberal Moe. Been voting Republican most all the time since 1972.
You may favor government to control your life but my conservative background makes me mistrust government.
Only a dumb ass believes any law will stop abortions.
Wealthy women will get them 100% of the time easily.
"For the health and safety of the mother" will be the reason the doctor will give everytime.
And who will question that and kindly please explain how ANY LAW stops that.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

No law stops murder, robbery, and as we see, not mass bombings either. The problem isn't the law. We already know that the law will be violated when convenient. It's a cultural shift toward a preference for dead babies instead of live ones. Now that the shift has been made, the question goes beyond a woman's right to choose the inner workings of her own body. A woman has the right to choose to kill her baby. That's a given. Now the question is at what point does she lose that right and the child have a right to live. Kermit Gosnell is all about that line of demarcation. The child is born alive, how long after that birth can a woman and her abortionist kill that baby and it still be considered an abortion. Two minutes? Ten minutes? Two years? obama's Science Czar, John Holdren proposed legalized abortion up to two years. It should not surprise you that medical ethicists believe that born, functioning, alive children should retain the status of fetus until such time as they are no longer considered "newborn".

?Journal of Medical Ethics? Stands by Publication of ?After-Birth Abortions? Article | TheBlaze.com

That's what's wrong. Now make "laws" based on this insanity.

 

[Dot Com]

[q

Initial - I didn't change any of the words in your post. Your intent is clear as day, and I'm sorry you think it's wrong to be corrected; however that is what you are.

1. There wouldn't be any fertilization had she chosen to remain celebate, how hard is that for you to understand? It works both ways, contrary to popular belief.

2. This sarcasm carries with it no argument. You must think women reproduce asexually or independent of a man. You really should have paid attention in Biology class.

3. It is an issue, that's still his sperm you clueless tool.

4. Plenty of a double standard. Men have no say but are to take responsibility of a child whose fate it was not theirs to determine. Sit back for a while and think about how little sense that should make to you.

Guy, you can't change ANYTHING in the post. That's the point.

She's got the uterus, she's driving the car. Deal with it.

If she says- "I'm having an abortion. Deal with it." You deal with it.

If she says- "I'm having the baby, get out your checkbook. Deal with it." you deal with that.

And frankly, that's how it should be.

If men had pouches like seahorses and carried the baby for half the pregnancy, maybe you'd have a point, but we didn't go that way on the evolutionary chain.

^ that.

As to USMB's obsessed abortion poster (kg), I'm guessing koshergirl is in favor of forcing women to bear children of rape or incest as well. Amiright on that kg?

 

[TemplarKormac]

[q

Initial - I didn't change any of the words in your post. Your intent is clear as day, and I'm sorry you think it's wrong to be corrected; however that is what you are.

1. There wouldn't be any fertilization had she chosen to remain celebate, how hard is that for you to understand? It works both ways, contrary to popular belief.

2. This sarcasm carries with it no argument. You must think women reproduce asexually or independent of a man. You really should have paid attention in Biology class.

3. It is an issue, that's still his sperm you clueless tool.

4. Plenty of a double standard. Men have no say but are to take responsibility of a child whose fate it was not theirs to determine. Sit back for a while and think about how little sense that should make to you.

1. Guy, you can't change ANYTHING in the post. That's the point.

2. She's got the uterus, she's driving the car. Deal with it.

3. If she says- "I'm having an abortion. Deal with it." You deal with it.

4. If she says- "I'm having the baby, get out your checkbook. Deal with it." you deal with that.

And frankly, that's how it should be.

If men had pouches like seahorses and carried the baby for half the pregnancy, maybe you'd have a point, but we didn't go that way on the evolutionary chain.

1. Why would I attempt to change something of yours that shows innumerable flaws in all of their glory? That gets quoted for posterity!

2. If the man owns the car. Oh yeah that's right, deal with it.

3. He's got the balls, he runs the household. Deal with it.

4. If he says "not if I want the child. Deal with it." Well I guess you deal with it.

5. If he says "this child is your responsibility too. Deal with it." I suppose you deal with it.

How do women reproduce? Can you answer that? Oh yeah, the man. Deal with it.

 

[Gadawg73]

I love the calibre of men that are drawn to these threads. Men who want babies dead and who think women are, by nature, promiscuous and criminal.

You are the one that believes women are to blame, not me.
You look the other way when there is a woman in trouble in desperate need of help from the man that was the other half in her pregnancy.
You support returning to the system where women with $$$ still receive their abortions and those with no $$$ will be punished by you and your legions of moral police.

 

[Gadawg73]

lulz

Please gtfo out of here with that. Governments can and do restrict people's "personal behavior/actions/whatever you want to call it" in order to prevent one individual from harming another. It's odd that liberals understand this everywhere EXCEPT for abortion, where suddenly the government has no "right" to restrict certain actions.

BTW> The government wouldn't decide who gets one and who doesn't, but under what circumstance you can and cannot get one. That's a big fundamental difference, and before you call someone a dumbass you sure as hell better make sure you know what you're talking about.

I am not a liberal Moe. Been voting Republican most all the time since 1972.
You may favor government to control your life but my conservative background makes me mistrust government.
Only a dumb ass believes any law will stop abortions.
Wealthy women will get them 100% of the time easily.
"For the health and safety of the mother" will be the reason the doctor will give everytime.
And who will question that and kindly please explain how ANY LAW stops that.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

No law stops murder, robbery, and as we see, not mass bombings either. The problem isn't the law. We already know that the law will be violated when convenient. It's a cultural shift toward a preference for dead babies instead of live ones. Now that the shift has been made, the question goes beyond a woman's right to choose the inner workings of her own body. A woman has the right to choose to kill her baby. That's a given. Now the question is at what point does she lose that right and the child have a right to live. Kermit Gosnell is all about that line of demarcation. The child is born alive, how long after that birth can a woman and her abortionist kill that baby and it still be considered an abortion. Two minutes? Ten minutes? Two years? obama's Science Czar, John Holdren proposed legalized abortion up to two years. It should not surprise you that medical ethicists believe that born, functioning, alive children should retain the status of fetus until such time as they are no longer considered "newborn".

?Journal of Medical Ethics? Stands by Publication of ?After-Birth Abortions? Article | TheBlaze.com

That's what's wrong. Now make "laws" based on this insanity.

"He murdered the man for his health" the doctor proclaims.
And no charges are brought because of that.
Sure, right. Happens every day.
Abortion was legal when those fine Christian men that you claim this nation was founded on their religion lived. And not prosecuted when it was "illegal".
Why was abortion never prosecuted when it was illegal on the women?
Take a wild guess. Open up your wallet and take a look.
Again, for the uninformed, naive and gullible.
I OPPOSE ABORTION.
Abortion is a bad HEALTH CARE decision.
No law stops it and no law ever will.
And BTW, to further show the absurdity of your claims, which state has murder been legal WITHOUT EXCEPTION?
This ought to be rich.

 

[JoeB131]

[

1. Why would I attempt to change something of yours that shows innumerable flaws in all of their glory? That gets quoted for posterity!

2. If the man owns the car. Oh yeah that's right, deal with it.

3. He's got the balls, he runs the household. Deal with it.

4. If he says "not if I want the child. Deal with it." Well I guess you deal with it.

5. If he says "this child is your responsibility too. Deal with it." I suppose you deal with it.

How do women reproduce? Can you answer that? Oh yeah, the man. Deal with it.

Guy, you broke the rules again.. you really aren't going to last here that long if you keep it up.

But to the point, your macho fantasises aside, women are the ones who decide this issue, which I'm just fine with.

But thanks for pointing out that this is about misogyny and not "life"

 

[koshergrl]

I love the calibre of men that are drawn to these threads. Men who want babies dead and who think women are, by nature, promiscuous and criminal.

You are the one that believes women are to blame, not me. Logical fallacy.
You look the other way when there is a woman in trouble in desperate need of help from the man that was the other half in her pregnancy. Irrelevant, a lie, and logical fallacy.
You support returning to the system where women with $$$ still receive their abortions and those with no $$$ will be punished by you and your legions of moral police. No, I don't.

Yeah, cuz Gosnell's clients were rich women.

Do you have any idea what retarded arguments baby killers use? Do you really think it's valid, or even intelligent? Or are you just blustering on the off chance that someone might believe you?

 

[koshergrl]

I am not a liberal Moe. Been voting Republican most all the time since 1972.
You may favor government to control your life but my conservative background makes me mistrust government.
Only a dumb ass believes any law will stop abortions.
Wealthy women will get them 100% of the time easily.
"For the health and safety of the mother" will be the reason the doctor will give everytime.
And who will question that and kindly please explain how ANY LAW stops that.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

No law stops murder, robbery, and as we see, not mass bombings either. The problem isn't the law. We already know that the law will be violated when convenient. It's a cultural shift toward a preference for dead babies instead of live ones. Now that the shift has been made, the question goes beyond a woman's right to choose the inner workings of her own body. A woman has the right to choose to kill her baby. That's a given. Now the question is at what point does she lose that right and the child have a right to live. Kermit Gosnell is all about that line of demarcation. The child is born alive, how long after that birth can a woman and her abortionist kill that baby and it still be considered an abortion. Two minutes? Ten minutes? Two years? obama's Science Czar, John Holdren proposed legalized abortion up to two years. It should not surprise you that medical ethicists believe that born, functioning, alive children should retain the status of fetus until such time as they are no longer considered "newborn".

?Journal of Medical Ethics? Stands by Publication of ?After-Birth Abortions? Article | TheBlaze.com

That's what's wrong. Now make "laws" based on this insanity.

"He murdered the man for his health" the doctor proclaims.
And no charges are brought because of that.
Sure, right. Happens every day.
Abortion was legal when those fine Christian men that you claim this nation was founded on their religion lived. And not prosecuted when it was "illegal".
Why was abortion never prosecuted when it was illegal on the women?
Take a wild guess. Open up your wallet and take a look.
Again, for the uninformed, naive and gullible.
I OPPOSE ABORTION.
Abortion is a bad HEALTH CARE decision.
No law stops it and no law ever will.
And BTW, to further show the absurdity of your claims, which state has murder been legal WITHOUT EXCEPTION?
This ought to be rich.

Nobody has said law will stop it entirely. In fact, nobody has ever argued that it should.

But the law should not condone it, and our government should not pay for it, and PP should be run out of town on a rail.

 

[tooAlive]

A fetus does not fucking 'scream'. Most abortions take place before 9 weeks, and the fetus doesn't have the facial features to even FORM a scream, and it doesn't have developed lungs with which to scream.

A baby born at 24 weeks won't even scream when its born, so how the fuck do you think an 8 week old fetus can?

wow you sound like a Nazi....

Gosnell Trial Witness: Baby Abortion Survivor Was 'Swimming' in Toilet 'Trying to Get Out' | CNS News


If you back this guy, you have no heart, hate children and humans and are just plain sick...this guy should be executed.......I can post more articles as well.

The baby wasn't trying to get out. A newborn baby has no sense of fear, it wouldn't have understood it was drowning, and therefore couldn't have felt fear.

Why do you think toddlers will touch a hot stove, or reach for a sharp knife? Because they have no fear that it is harmful.

Do you see where your logic is lacking?

Does the burn hurt any less simply because the child isn't expecting it?

It's not about the baby feeling fear or not. He/she obviously does not know it's about to be butchered to death via abortion. That doesn't mean it isn't wrong to do so.