Anti-abortion fanatics

[Vigilante]

Unfortunately, all these scumbags mothers didn't believe in what they do!

36 weeks? Late term abortions are already highly restricted.

Does that matter to a PRO CHOICE LIBERAL?....

YES

 

[Dhara]

Anti-abortion fanatics invade a church service. Where's the outrage?

 

[aris2chat]

You don't have the right to "force" a woman to give up rights to her body

If you want a baby, you carry it, don't make a woman who does not want to be pregnant and have her body and life disrupted.

 

[Chuz Life]

The OP so far hasn't been addressed.

Fanaticism is fanaticism.

If it is not your body, it is not your choice, either way

Funny that the Supreme Court did not take that position when they were deciding Roe. Did they?

In fact, let's listen to what they actually DID say and listen too at how the pro-abort lawyer (Sarah Weddington) agreed with it.

it was a privacy issue between her and her doctor.

Private Matter or not, the Supreme Court made it clear that once personhood for a child in the womb has been established "the case FOR abortion becomes near impossible to make" and Since the SCOTUS made that declaration, we (the people) have enacted State and Federal fetal homicide laws which now already legally define a "child in the womb" and already recognize them as MURDER victims when they are killed in a criminal act.

not till it can be felt moving, quickening. Not till the second or third trimester.

You clearly have not read the actual language of our fetal homicide laws.

(C)
If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections1111 (murder), 1112 (manslaughter), and 1113 (attempted murder) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human

And

(d)
As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

being. Link: 18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

 

[Carla_Danger]

We call ourselves "pro-life". If you're going to label the pro-aborts "pro-choice" then you should use our preferred name as well.

I prefer pro-choice or anti-choice.

 

[Dhara]

Anti-freedom to choose. Breeder slave.

 

[Dhara]

an important aspect of slavery… has been all too often ignored: slaveholders expected to appropriate and exploit the reproductive lives of enslaved women. Control of one’s body was not a fundamental right of slaves. Emboldened by law and custom to do with human chattels as they wished, (slave) owners felt entitled to intervene in even the most intimate of matters. Women’s childbearing capacity became a commodity that could be traded on the open market.

Birthing a Slave: Reproduction and Inhumanity during America’s Slavery Era

 

[bodecea]

Unfortunately, all these scumbags mothers didn't believe in what they do!

How many 3rd tri you talking about?

 

[Dhara]

Anti-choice fanatics are equivalent to slave breeders. Control of one's body was not a fundamental right of slaves. Is it any surprise modern American women want more rights than 19th century slaves?

 

[Chuz Life]

Anti-choice fanatics are equivalent to slave breeders. Control of one's body was not a fundamental right of slaves. Is it any surprise modern American women want more rights than 19th century slaves?

If you are going to make comparisons to slavery, do it right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

versus pro-choice fanatics.

Interdependent.

What's the difference really?

A significant difference.

Those hostile to privacy rights seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty – the issue is much more than just abortion.

And defending the privacy rights of all Americans doesn't constitute 'fanaticism.'

 

[Dhara]

versus pro-choice fanatics.

Interdependent.

What's the difference really?

A significant difference.

Those hostile to privacy rights seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty – the issue is much more than just abortion.

And defending the privacy rights of all Americans doesn't constitute 'fanaticism.'

The analogy to slavery is what strkes me the most. Slaves didn't have a right to or control over their bodies. They were forced to breed.

 

[Chuz Life]

defending the privacy rights of all Americans doesn't constitute 'fanaticism.'

Neither does the defense of any other Constitutional protections amount to an act of fanaticism.

 

[aris2chat]

We call ourselves "pro-life". If you're going to label the pro-aborts "pro-choice" then you should use our preferred name as well.

I prefer pro-choice or anti-choice.

The right to choose what is right for the woman is also choosing to keep the fetus if she wants.

No one should take that choice and freedom away from her. We do not have sharia type laws and restrict woman to a sub-servant status. It is the woman's body and her life. It should be her choice, either way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

versus pro-choice fanatics.

Interdependent.

What's the difference really?

A significant difference.

Those hostile to privacy rights seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty – the issue is much more than just abortion.

And defending the privacy rights of all Americans doesn't constitute 'fanaticism.'

The analogy to slavery is what strkes me the most. Slaves didn't have a right to or control over their bodies. They were forced to breed.

The right to privacy is settled and accepted – the Constitution places limits on government, safeguarding a realm personal liberty immune from attack by the state – the right to decide whether to have a child or not is one of the many protected liberties acknowledged by the Constitution.

 

[Chuz Life]

We call ourselves "pro-life". If you're going to label the pro-aborts "pro-choice" then you should use our preferred name as well.

I prefer pro-choice or anti-choice.

The right to choose what is right for the woman is also choosing to keep the fetus if she wants.

No one should take that choice and freedom away from her. We do not have sharia type laws and restrict woman to a sub-servant status. It is the woman's body and her life. It should be her choice, either way.

I'm glad our Supreme Court already appreciates the fact that it is problematic to abortion supporters for a person's rights to begin when their life does.

That's why I long for the day when our court will have to reconcile their ruling in Roe with our more recent fetal HOMICIDE laws which establishes the fact that it is a child in the womb which is worthy of each their own Constitutional rights and protections.

 

[Chuz Life]

versus pro-choice fanatics.

Interdependent.

What's the difference really?

A significant difference.

Those hostile to privacy rights seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty – the issue is much more than just abortion.

And defending the privacy rights of all Americans doesn't constitute 'fanaticism.'

The analogy to slavery is what strkes me the most. Slaves didn't have a right to or control over their bodies. They were forced to breed.

The right to privacy is settled and accepted – the Constitution places limits on government, safeguarding a realm personal liberty immune from attack by the state – the right to decide whether to have a child or not is one of the many protected liberties acknowledged by the Constitution.

I'm sure that you agree (even if you don't appreciate it) that no-one has the right to violate the rights of another and then Hide that act behind a so called "right to privacy."

Abortions are essentially an act of non sexual molestation. It's a fact that No aborted children escape unmolested from their abortion procedure.

I'm willing to bet that you agree that no-one has the right to molest a child and then to hide that act behind their own so called "right to privacy"(sic).

 

[Blackrook]

Back before the Civil War, slave owners were telling people who didn't have slaves to mind their own business.

Ultimately, that argument failed, and so will yours.

We are not going to stand by and allow you to commit genocide. We will fight you on this, and we will never give up, ever. In 1000 years we will still be fighting you, if that's what it takes.

 

[Dhara]

Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want OR force her to terminate a pregnancy she wants violates the basic human right of a woman's reproductive health.

 

[Chuz Life]

Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want OR force her to terminate a pregnancy she wants violates the basic human right of a woman's reproductive health.

In as much as I am respectful of women's rights. . . I have to remind myself that a woman's rights begin when her life does.

At conception.