Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson Signs Into Law A Near-Total Abortion Ban

[ESay]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

It's not any of your business.

Cool. Why is that? Because I am male?

Yes that's exactly right. If someone you date or marry doesn't want YOUR child there is nothing you can do about it.

That point is strange. You want equal rights for all, but now give away a right to decide basing on a biological sex.

Well its not a person yet, you can do what you want with your kids (if its legal) but you can't tell a pg women anything even if she is your girlfriend or wife. Your girlfriend or wife can't be forced to not have an abortion. It's not your body.

Well, the reasoning in this way can lead to absurd conclusions. It is my body and I can relieve myself wherever I want, it is my business and I can impose every absurd regulation for the workers I want, it is my property and I can use it no matter what inconvenience I cause to other people. Etc.

An unborn baby isnt a person yet. Okay. But you know, I find it a little bit strange when, say, animals are protected from humans' cruelty, but unborn babies are not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

On what logical basis?

Based on the development of a fetus.

I'm sorry, did you actually think that was some sort of answer? Let me see if I can clarify the term "logical" for you a little bit by demonstration.

1) For what reason would someone want to make abortion illegal at any point in time?

2) In what way would that reason apply in the second and third trimesters, but not in the first trimester?

I shall be fascinated to see if you can answer those two questions in anything approaching a coherent fashion.

1. If the baby is unwanted and there is no way to make legal abortion.

2. Dont fully understood this part. If a woman wants to make an illegal abortion in the second and third trimesters, she will do that.

Your answer to number one makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the question I actually asked. Please do me the courtesy of reading the post you are ostensibly responding to.

Had you bothered to read and comprehend question one before blathering out an unintelligible response to whatever the hell it was you thought I said, you would have had no trouble understanding question two.

For the record, neither question is about the woman having the abortion, because no one in the English-speaking world refers to that as "making an abortion". Go back, read the post again slowly and carefully, possibly get someone who reads English better than you to explain it.

 

[Penelope]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

It's not any of your business.

Cool. Why is that? Because I am male?

Yes that's exactly right. If someone you date or marry doesn't want YOUR child there is nothing you can do about it.

That point is strange. You want equal rights for all, but now give away a right to decide basing on a biological sex.

Well its not a person yet, you can do what you want with your kids (if its legal) but you can't tell a pg women anything even if she is your girlfriend or wife. Your girlfriend or wife can't be forced to not have an abortion. It's not your body.

Well, the reasoning in this way can lead to absurd conclusions. It is my body and I can relieve myself wherever I want, it is my business and I can impose every absurd regulation for the workers I want, it is my property and I can use it no matter what inconvenience I cause to other people. Etc.

An unborn baby isnt a person yet. Okay. But you know, I find it a little bit strange when, say, animals are protected from humans' cruelty, but unborn babies are not.

Like I said there are many reasons for having an abortion of which you do not understand. How about this, its legal by the Supreme Court and this is not a Theocracy and it would be force to have a female carry child to term and is done where men are the boss of women.

 

[ESay]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

On what logical basis?

Based on the development of a fetus.

I'm sorry, did you actually think that was some sort of answer? Let me see if I can clarify the term "logical" for you a little bit by demonstration.

1) For what reason would someone want to make abortion illegal at any point in time?

2) In what way would that reason apply in the second and third trimesters, but not in the first trimester?

I shall be fascinated to see if you can answer those two questions in anything approaching a coherent fashion.

1. If the baby is unwanted and there is no way to make legal abortion.

2. Dont fully understood this part. If a woman wants to make an illegal abortion in the second and third trimesters, she will do that.

Your answer to number one makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the question I actually asked. Please do me the courtesy of reading the post you are ostensibly responding to.

Had you bothered to read and comprehend question one before blathering out an unintelligible response to whatever the hell it was you thought I said, you would have had no trouble understanding question two.

For the record, neither question is about the woman having the abortion, because no one in the English-speaking world refers to that as "making an abortion". Go back, read the post again slowly and carefully, possibly get someone who reads English better than you to explain it.

Okay, I will re-read your question once again and will try to give you an answer. But please put aside your mentor tone. I dont oblige you anything and you can just scip my posts if you dont like them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

On what logical basis?

Based on the development of a fetus.

I'm sorry, did you actually think that was some sort of answer? Let me see if I can clarify the term "logical" for you a little bit by demonstration.

1) For what reason would someone want to make abortion illegal at any point in time?

2) In what way would that reason apply in the second and third trimesters, but not in the first trimester?

I shall be fascinated to see if you can answer those two questions in anything approaching a coherent fashion.

1. If the baby is unwanted and there is no way to make legal abortion.

2. Dont fully understood this part. If a woman wants to make an illegal abortion in the second and third trimesters, she will do that.

Your answer to number one makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the question I actually asked. Please do me the courtesy of reading the post you are ostensibly responding to.

Had you bothered to read and comprehend question one before blathering out an unintelligible response to whatever the hell it was you thought I said, you would have had no trouble understanding question two.

For the record, neither question is about the woman having the abortion, because no one in the English-speaking world refers to that as "making an abortion". Go back, read the post again slowly and carefully, possibly get someone who reads English better than you to explain it.

Okay, I will re-read your question once again and will try to give you an answer. But please put aside your mentor tone. I dont oblige you anything and you can just scip my posts if you dont like them.

You put aside your careless illiteracy, and I won't feel the need to talk to you like a careless illiterate. Despite what the leftists in this country would have you believe, you are not a martyred victim for being expected to behave like an intelligent adult. You can just "scip [sic]" my posts if you consider adult expectations abusive.

 

[ESay]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

On what logical basis?

Based on the development of a fetus.

I'm sorry, did you actually think that was some sort of answer? Let me see if I can clarify the term "logical" for you a little bit by demonstration.

1) For what reason would someone want to make abortion illegal at any point in time?

2) In what way would that reason apply in the second and third trimesters, but not in the first trimester?

I shall be fascinated to see if you can answer those two questions in anything approaching a coherent fashion.

1. If the baby is unwanted and there is no way to make legal abortion.

2. Dont fully understood this part. If a woman wants to make an illegal abortion in the second and third trimesters, she will do that.

Your answer to number one makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the question I actually asked. Please do me the courtesy of reading the post you are ostensibly responding to.

Had you bothered to read and comprehend question one before blathering out an unintelligible response to whatever the hell it was you thought I said, you would have had no trouble understanding question two.

For the record, neither question is about the woman having the abortion, because no one in the English-speaking world refers to that as "making an abortion". Go back, read the post again slowly and carefully, possibly get someone who reads English better than you to explain it.

Okay, I will re-read your question once again and will try to give you an answer. But please put aside your mentor tone. I dont oblige you anything and you can just scip my posts if you dont like them.

You put aside your careless illiteracy, and I won't feel the need to talk to you like a careless illiterate. Despite what the leftists in this country would have you believe, you are not a martyred victim for being expected to behave like an intelligent adult. You can just "scip [sic]" my posts if you consider adult expectations abusive.

Lady, how many foreign languages do you know?

 

[ESay]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

It's not any of your business.

Cool. Why is that? Because I am male?

Yes that's exactly right. If someone you date or marry doesn't want YOUR child there is nothing you can do about it.

That point is strange. You want equal rights for all, but now give away a right to decide basing on a biological sex.

Well its not a person yet, you can do what you want with your kids (if its legal) but you can't tell a pg women anything even if she is your girlfriend or wife. Your girlfriend or wife can't be forced to not have an abortion. It's not your body.

Well, the reasoning in this way can lead to absurd conclusions. It is my body and I can relieve myself wherever I want, it is my business and I can impose every absurd regulation for the workers I want, it is my property and I can use it no matter what inconvenience I cause to other people. Etc.

An unborn baby isnt a person yet. Okay. But you know, I find it a little bit strange when, say, animals are protected from humans' cruelty, but unborn babies are not.

Like I said there are many reasons for having an abortion of which you do not understand. How about this, its legal by the Supreme Court and this is not a Theocracy and it would be force to have a female carry child to term and is done where men are the boss of women.

Some norms which were legal some time ago are now considered "out-dated' (let's put it in a mild form). And my point has nothing to do with a religion whatsoever.

Every adult person should understand that every action can have some consequences. And if some person doesn't want this consequences to happen, they should restrict some of their actions. If they fail to do so, they should carry their burden.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

On what logical basis?

Based on the development of a fetus.

I'm sorry, did you actually think that was some sort of answer? Let me see if I can clarify the term "logical" for you a little bit by demonstration.

1) For what reason would someone want to make abortion illegal at any point in time?

2) In what way would that reason apply in the second and third trimesters, but not in the first trimester?

I shall be fascinated to see if you can answer those two questions in anything approaching a coherent fashion.

1. If the baby is unwanted and there is no way to make legal abortion.

2. Dont fully understood this part. If a woman wants to make an illegal abortion in the second and third trimesters, she will do that.

Your answer to number one makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the question I actually asked. Please do me the courtesy of reading the post you are ostensibly responding to.

Had you bothered to read and comprehend question one before blathering out an unintelligible response to whatever the hell it was you thought I said, you would have had no trouble understanding question two.

For the record, neither question is about the woman having the abortion, because no one in the English-speaking world refers to that as "making an abortion". Go back, read the post again slowly and carefully, possibly get someone who reads English better than you to explain it.

Okay, I will re-read your question once again and will try to give you an answer. But please put aside your mentor tone. I dont oblige you anything and you can just scip my posts if you dont like them.

You put aside your careless illiteracy, and I won't feel the need to talk to you like a careless illiterate. Despite what the leftists in this country would have you believe, you are not a martyred victim for being expected to behave like an intelligent adult. You can just "scip [sic]" my posts if you consider adult expectations abusive.

Lady, how many foreign languages do you know?

You're wasting my time, first with your incoherence and now with your sniveling attempts at justifying your incoherence.

Since getting you to think logically about your mindless positions is clearly overestimating you, I will simply spell out where you were wrong according to your exhibited capabilities:

There is only one reason for abortion to be illegal: because it is wrong to kill an unborn child, who is a living person. If he is not a living person, or if it is not wrong to kill him, then there is no other reason whatsoever for abortion to be illegal.

Therefore, to say that abortion should be illegal in the second and third trimester but not in the first is to say either that the unborn child is not a living person, or that it is not wrong to kill him, during the first trimester. However, there is no logical reason whatsoever to believe that this is true of an unborn child in the first trimester, but not in the second and third.

You are welcome for this explanation of your nonsensical position, and my generously donated time to your education is now at an end.

 

[ESay]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

On what logical basis?

Based on the development of a fetus.

I'm sorry, did you actually think that was some sort of answer? Let me see if I can clarify the term "logical" for you a little bit by demonstration.

1) For what reason would someone want to make abortion illegal at any point in time?

2) In what way would that reason apply in the second and third trimesters, but not in the first trimester?

I shall be fascinated to see if you can answer those two questions in anything approaching a coherent fashion.

1. If the baby is unwanted and there is no way to make legal abortion.

2. Dont fully understood this part. If a woman wants to make an illegal abortion in the second and third trimesters, she will do that.

Your answer to number one makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the question I actually asked. Please do me the courtesy of reading the post you are ostensibly responding to.

Had you bothered to read and comprehend question one before blathering out an unintelligible response to whatever the hell it was you thought I said, you would have had no trouble understanding question two.

For the record, neither question is about the woman having the abortion, because no one in the English-speaking world refers to that as "making an abortion". Go back, read the post again slowly and carefully, possibly get someone who reads English better than you to explain it.

Okay, I will re-read your question once again and will try to give you an answer. But please put aside your mentor tone. I dont oblige you anything and you can just scip my posts if you dont like them.

You put aside your careless illiteracy, and I won't feel the need to talk to you like a careless illiterate. Despite what the leftists in this country would have you believe, you are not a martyred victim for being expected to behave like an intelligent adult. You can just "scip [sic]" my posts if you consider adult expectations abusive.

Lady, how many foreign languages do you know?

You're wasting my time, first with your incoherence and now with your sniveling attempts at justifying your incoherence.

Since getting you to think logically about your mindless positions is clearly overestimating you, I will simply spell out where you were wrong according to your exhibited capabilities:

There is only one reason for abortion to be illegal: because it is wrong to kill an unborn child, who is a living person. If he is not a living person, or if it is not wrong to kill him, then there is no other reason whatsoever for abortion to be illegal.

Therefore, to say that abortion should be illegal in the second and third trimester but not in the first is to say either that the unborn child is not a living person, or that it is not wrong to kill him, during the first trimester. However, there is no logical reason whatsoever to believe that this is true of an unborn child in the first trimester, but not in the second and third.

You are welcome for this explanation of your nonsensical position, and my generously donated time to your education is now at an end.

So, you couldnt answer my question? Okay, you blamed me for illiteracy because I didn't properly understand your question. And know what I want to tell you? You will be in a position to blame me for it when you will comprehend and be able to write your thoughts in say one of the Slavic languages at least on the level I do it in English.

The 'quickness' you resorted to personal characteristics shows that you are an arrogant buffoon. Keep your time to yourself, it is worth nothing in any case. As is your 'educating'.

 

[Penelope]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

It's not any of your business.

Cool. Why is that? Because I am male?

Yes that's exactly right. If someone you date or marry doesn't want YOUR child there is nothing you can do about it.

That point is strange. You want equal rights for all, but now give away a right to decide basing on a biological sex.

Well its not a person yet, you can do what you want with your kids (if its legal) but you can't tell a pg women anything even if she is your girlfriend or wife. Your girlfriend or wife can't be forced to not have an abortion. It's not your body.

Well, the reasoning in this way can lead to absurd conclusions. It is my body and I can relieve myself wherever I want, it is my business and I can impose every absurd regulation for the workers I want, it is my property and I can use it no matter what inconvenience I cause to other people. Etc.

An unborn baby isnt a person yet. Okay. But you know, I find it a little bit strange when, say, animals are protected from humans' cruelty, but unborn babies are not.

Like I said there are many reasons for having an abortion of which you do not understand. How about this, its legal by the Supreme Court and this is not a Theocracy and it would be force to have a female carry child to term and is done where men are the boss of women.

Some norms which were legal some time ago are now considered "out-dated' (let's put it in a mild form). And my point has nothing to do with a religion whatsoever.

Every adult person should understand that every action can have some consequences. And if some person doesn't want this consequences to happen, they should restrict some of their actions. If they fail to do so, they should carry their burden.

Most women get pg because most men don't wear a rubber.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

It's not any of your business.

Cool. Why is that? Because I am male?

Yes that's exactly right. If someone you date or marry doesn't want YOUR child there is nothing you can do about it.

That point is strange. You want equal rights for all, but now give away a right to decide basing on a biological sex.

Well its not a person yet, you can do what you want with your kids (if its legal) but you can't tell a pg women anything even if she is your girlfriend or wife. Your girlfriend or wife can't be forced to not have an abortion. It's not your body.

Well, the reasoning in this way can lead to absurd conclusions. It is my body and I can relieve myself wherever I want, it is my business and I can impose every absurd regulation for the workers I want, it is my property and I can use it no matter what inconvenience I cause to other people. Etc.

An unborn baby isnt a person yet. Okay. But you know, I find it a little bit strange when, say, animals are protected from humans' cruelty, but unborn babies are not.

Like I said there are many reasons for having an abortion of which you do not understand. How about this, its legal by the Supreme Court and this is not a Theocracy and it would be force to have a female carry child to term and is done where men are the boss of women.

Some norms which were legal some time ago are now considered "out-dated' (let's put it in a mild form). And my point has nothing to do with a religion whatsoever.

Every adult person should understand that every action can have some consequences. And if some person doesn't want this consequences to happen, they should restrict some of their actions. If they fail to do so, they should carry their burden.

Most women get pg because most men don't wear a rubber.

How would you know?

 

[ESay]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

And the rights of the women and their privacy should be equal with the law.

You mean this in the context of the right on abortion? Basically, I agree with that, but there should be term limits. Say, this right should exist in the first three months of pregnancy. An abortion on demand, that is.

It's not any of your business.

Cool. Why is that? Because I am male?

Yes that's exactly right. If someone you date or marry doesn't want YOUR child there is nothing you can do about it.

That point is strange. You want equal rights for all, but now give away a right to decide basing on a biological sex.

Well its not a person yet, you can do what you want with your kids (if its legal) but you can't tell a pg women anything even if she is your girlfriend or wife. Your girlfriend or wife can't be forced to not have an abortion. It's not your body.

Well, the reasoning in this way can lead to absurd conclusions. It is my body and I can relieve myself wherever I want, it is my business and I can impose every absurd regulation for the workers I want, it is my property and I can use it no matter what inconvenience I cause to other people. Etc.

An unborn baby isnt a person yet. Okay. But you know, I find it a little bit strange when, say, animals are protected from humans' cruelty, but unborn babies are not.

Like I said there are many reasons for having an abortion of which you do not understand. How about this, its legal by the Supreme Court and this is not a Theocracy and it would be force to have a female carry child to term and is done where men are the boss of women.

Some norms which were legal some time ago are now considered "out-dated' (let's put it in a mild form). And my point has nothing to do with a religion whatsoever.

Every adult person should understand that every action can have some consequences. And if some person doesn't want this consequences to happen, they should restrict some of their actions. If they fail to do so, they should carry their burden.

Most women get pg because most men don't wear a rubber.

You cant only blame men for that. It is a mutual responsibility.

 

[whoisit]

I don't understand liberal logic! How can a baby be just a fetus if a mother wants to abort it aja kill it but if somebody else causes her to lose aka abort or kill it all of a sudden now its a baby?

 

[BS Filter]

And the alternative is death

there are post born real children going hungry every night ...

(R)s vote to cut SNAP & medicaid some more - 'cause BIGCORP needs a bigger tax cut.

Yeah, so they're better off dead. Sicko.

 

[HenryBHough]

If abortion is OK.
If parting-out babies is OK.
Then WTF is wrong with cannibalism?

 

[playtime]

And the alternative is death

there are post born real children going hungry every night ...

(R)s vote to cut SNAP & medicaid some more - 'cause BIGCORP needs a bigger tax cut.

Yeah, so they're better off dead. Sicko.

 

[surada]

A likely contender to see the SCOTUS.

The legislation prohibits abortion in the state unless a pregnancy poses a risk to the mother’s life. A legal challenge to the bill is virtually certain.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson Signs Into Law A Near-Total Abortion Ban

I would be surprised if the majority in Arkansas agreed with this.

 

[BS Filter]

And the alternative is death

there are post born real children going hungry every night ...

(R)s vote to cut SNAP & medicaid some more - 'cause BIGCORP needs a bigger tax cut.

Yeah, so they're better off dead. Sicko.

That's their problem. Any woman who would kill her own child deserves what she gets.

 

[playtime]

And the alternative is death

there are post born real children going hungry every night ...

(R)s vote to cut SNAP & medicaid some more - 'cause BIGCORP needs a bigger tax cut.

Yeah, so they're better off dead. Sicko.

That's their problem. Any woman who would kill her own child deserves what she gets.

lol ... 'child' ....

when was the last time you voted for higher taxes to take care of 'em?

save your sanctimonious hypocrisy, aflak - nobody's buying it.

 

[BS Filter]

And the alternative is death

there are post born real children going hungry every night ...

(R)s vote to cut SNAP & medicaid some more - 'cause BIGCORP needs a bigger tax cut.

Yeah, so they're better off dead. Sicko.

That's their problem. Any woman who would kill her own child deserves what she gets.

lol ... 'child' ....

when was the last time you voted for higher taxes to take care of 'em?

save your sanctimonious hypocrisy, aflak - nobody's buying it.

Two totally different topics that have nothing in common.