It is certainly true that those who support abortion are monsters...

[Dragonlady]

That’s because there is nothing else remotely similar to pregnancy and childbirth, and nothing that impacts a woman’s life more than the decision as to whether or not to have a baby. This is true regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy.

And here’s reality. Leaving this decision to the woman, her partner and her caregiver’s costs the state nothing. All of this bullshit around trying to force a woman to have a child she cannot afford, is an expensive waste of taxpayers’ money.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don’t have one. This is my belief. I believe that abortion is wrong, so I didn’t have one.

Choice is something I have marched for. For myself and my daughters. Not having an abortion is a choice.

Ahhh, so you've decided that this one thing of all others in the world is just so special and important that it is exempt from YOUR OWN MORAL STANDARDS. As far as I'm concerned, what I just heard is, "Right and wrong are defined by what I, and only I, want at the moment."

The abortion debate isn’t a question of morality. It’s a question of privacy and my right to control my life and the size of my family.

You keep trying to make this discussion about something else - your version of morality, or what you think your God would want.

I chose to have my baby. There was a cost. I never got my MBA. And I’ve never regretted my decision. But it was my decision to make.

Another friend found out she was pregnant after she had separated from her husband. She chose to end the pregnancy and wait until she was in a better situation. She had just moved to a new city to start a new life and hadn’t even found a job at that point. She also wanted to sever all ties with her husband going forward. A child is an unbreakable tie.

I am a religious woman. I believe that God have us the ability to choose. Not all embryos are viable. Just as all conditions are not ideal. God gave us choice because in times of war, famine, or other catastrophes, it’s not always possible or reasonable for women to have babies. Sometimes, the risk to both mother and child is too great.

Whatever your beliefs, allowing women to make their own choices based on their own beliefs and their own situations is the best route to go.

Pro-choice is the only unreasonable solution.

No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.

Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

If you had half a brain, you’d google the question first before making a complete fool of yourself. On the other hand conservatives are incapable of fact checking and I have yet to meet one with even half a brain so let me help:

Abortion Denied: Consequences for Mother and Child | HuffPost

Children Born After Unplanned Pregnancies and Cognitive Development at 3 Years: Social Differentials in the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...ct_unintended_childbearing_future_sawhill.pdf

Consequences for Children of Their Birth Planning Status

 

[evenflow1969]

Not if they can't afford the means not to get pregnant. Do you think women just have abortions like water runs from your faucet. Most women think long and hard before it and you will find its mainly the poorer women who get abortion with no resources, like a mother or grandmother to take care of the child, and by the way what are the wealthy women's excuse for getting an abortion.

Double negative. It's tricky.

Are you even listening to your logic?

If they can't afford the cost of prevention, then they certainly can't afford the cost of the pregnancy or abortion. Maybe, just maybe, they should factor that into their decision making. God forbid, they take accountability and responsibility for their decisions and actions.

And yet men try to lay as many as they can. Maybe the men should think first. I am pro choice up to and including the 24th month and nothing will change my mind on that.

Like I said before it takes two to tango.

But given that men can and do walk away that is just more good reason for women to act responsibly to protect their best interests.

The women who are getting abortions aren’t party girls looking for a good time. They’re poor women who had sex with their husbands and whose birth control fails.

80% of these women live at or below the poverty line. None have job security if they become pregnant. Over half are married or in a committed relationship. 13% identify as evangelical Christians. More than half have one or more children already.

Only 15% of these women are teenagers and most of those who are teenagers are in their late teens. The vast majority are women in their 20’s.

When you look at the reality that it’s not good time party girls who are getting abortions but young and poor married couples who can’t afford to have more children, the whole abortion debate gets turned on its head.

The abortion rate in the US is being driven by Republican economic policies. Countries with FREE abortions, like Canada, have half the abortion rate of the US because of liberal economic policies.

Republicans talk the talk about opposing abortion, but do nothing to help the poor women lining up to terminate pregnancies they cannot afford, other than call them murderers.

Republican hypocrisy at its best. Punishing and shaming poor women for daring to have sex.

Birth control fails? If it is so ineffective, why do people bother to use it?

The statistics you are spouting are just baseless. The fact they are baseless is a testament to how stupid liberals truly are, thinking we believe your bullshit!

The red text highlights your complete lack of intelligence. If abortions were just suddenly made "free" then we wouldn't have as many? In what dimension of time and space does that make sense? None! Your IQ is slipping further into invertebrate levels.

I have seen far too many high school students with baby bumps one day and a flat as a board stomach the next to know they did not discover some new diet secret, especially when they proclaim to the world that they missed school to go to the clinic.

I have broken many beds but never a condom! The shit alkways worked for me!

 

[Dragonlady]

Double negative. It's tricky.

Are you even listening to your logic?

If they can't afford the cost of prevention, then they certainly can't afford the cost of the pregnancy or abortion. Maybe, just maybe, they should factor that into their decision making. God forbid, they take accountability and responsibility for their decisions and actions.

And yet men try to lay as many as they can. Maybe the men should think first. I am pro choice up to and including the 24th month and nothing will change my mind on that.

Like I said before it takes two to tango.

But given that men can and do walk away that is just more good reason for women to act responsibly to protect their best interests.

The women who are getting abortions aren’t party girls looking for a good time. They’re poor women who had sex with their husbands and whose birth control fails.

80% of these women live at or below the poverty line. None have job security if they become pregnant. Over half are married or in a committed relationship. 13% identify as evangelical Christians. More than half have one or more children already.

Only 15% of these women are teenagers and most of those who are teenagers are in their late teens. The vast majority are women in their 20’s.

When you look at the reality that it’s not good time party girls who are getting abortions but young and poor married couples who can’t afford to have more children, the whole abortion debate gets turned on its head.

The abortion rate in the US is being driven by Republican economic policies. Countries with FREE abortions, like Canada, have half the abortion rate of the US because of liberal economic policies.

Republicans talk the talk about opposing abortion, but do nothing to help the poor women lining up to terminate pregnancies they cannot afford, other than call them murderers.

Republican hypocrisy at its best. Punishing and shaming poor women for daring to have sex.

Birth control fails? If it is so ineffective, why do people bother to use it?

The statistics you are spouting are just baseless. The fact they are baseless is a testament to how stupid liberals truly are, thinking we believe your bullshit!

The red text highlights your complete lack of intelligence. If abortions were just suddenly made "free" then we wouldn't have as many? In what dimension of time and space does that make sense? None! Your IQ is slipping further into invertebrate levels.

I have seen far too many high school students with baby bumps one day and a flat as a board stomach the next to know they did not discover some new diet secret, especially when they proclaim to the world that they missed school to go to the clinic.

I have broken many beds but never a condom! The shit alkways worked for me!

My experience is the opposite.

 

[sakinago]

Ahhh, so you've decided that this one thing of all others in the world is just so special and important that it is exempt from YOUR OWN MORAL STANDARDS. As far as I'm concerned, what I just heard is, "Right and wrong are defined by what I, and only I, want at the moment."

The abortion debate isn’t a question of morality. It’s a question of privacy and my right to control my life and the size of my family.

You keep trying to make this discussion about something else - your version of morality, or what you think your God would want.

I chose to have my baby. There was a cost. I never got my MBA. And I’ve never regretted my decision. But it was my decision to make.

Another friend found out she was pregnant after she had separated from her husband. She chose to end the pregnancy and wait until she was in a better situation. She had just moved to a new city to start a new life and hadn’t even found a job at that point. She also wanted to sever all ties with her husband going forward. A child is an unbreakable tie.

I am a religious woman. I believe that God have us the ability to choose. Not all embryos are viable. Just as all conditions are not ideal. God gave us choice because in times of war, famine, or other catastrophes, it’s not always possible or reasonable for women to have babies. Sometimes, the risk to both mother and child is too great.

Whatever your beliefs, allowing women to make their own choices based on their own beliefs and their own situations is the best route to go.

Pro-choice is the only unreasonable solution.

No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.

Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

If you had half a brain, you’d google the question first before making a complete fool of yourself. On the other hand conservatives are incapable of fact checking and I have yet to meet one with even half a brain so let me help:

Abortion Denied: Consequences for Mother and Child | HuffPost

Children Born After Unplanned Pregnancies and Cognitive Development at 3 Years: Social Differentials in the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...ct_unintended_childbearing_future_sawhill.pdf

Consequences for Children of Their Birth Planning Status

I didn’t have too because I am quite familiar with the literature behind IQ studies. You apparently don’t even read your own articles, and don’t understand concepts like correlation/causation, or sources and methods, or controls vs meta studies. If you would’ve read a bit, none of your articles say a single thing about IQ scores. The truth about IQ is that no matter what we have tried, nothing we do can increase or decrease IQ scores outside of very minor variations that do not seem to last over extended periods of time. They are kind of dismal findings, but that’s the fact of the matter, at least for now unless we stumble across some sort of major breakthrough. Your articles will cite behavioral and developmental problems, but do not even try to infer direct causality (or at least I hope they didn’t as I skimmed over some of the sections). If they did, that’d be a absolute miscarriage of science. Especially since we’ve known for a long ass time about children raised in single parent families and the stark and undeniable tendencies towards behavioral and developmental problems (that also can lead to problems in education, way different than IQ) vs kids raised by two parents. When primarily studying a group of women with “mistimed” pregnancies, it’s pretty easily inferred that these women with “mistimed” pregnancies have a much larger representation of single mothers over the mean. All these studies, as far as I can tell, are all meta-studies. Where they are basically data-mining information. The problem with these is that there are not enough controls built into the “studies”, and all these studies are sometimes good for is maybe pointing out a trend that should be investigated further, but that’s about it. There are so many variables that aren’t even addressed in these studies, let alone the lack of controls. I think there’s certainly some truth to them, but they’re also “no shit Sherlock,” studies basically pointing out that the sky is blue, but not able to tell you why.

 

[Penelope]

Im not trying to justify abortion. I think it is inhumane to destroy potential human life like that. I just dont want the state wiping my ass for me like you.

Permitting abortion is the state wiping people’s asses for them. People who, despite contraception being the cheapest, most available, and easier to use than anytime in history, still have unprotected sex and are shocked when participating in the act of reproduction produces a baby. And then they ask the government if it’s ok to take a mulligan on it. It’s undeniable human life that we turn our consciousness off too and say, “go ahead and scrape it out, shit happens.” We don’t say that when people get blitzed and then hop behind a wheel and kill someone. Just because you can’t physically see it, that makes it better? It’s letting people who should know better make stupid decisions and erasing the consequences of that decision for them.

What part of this is ANY OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS????

The decision to have a baby is none of your concern. It’s not your life. It’s not your family. You don’t want to be responsible for this child. You don’t want to pay for its health care, housing or education.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don’t have one.

It’s my business just like it’d be anyone’s business to say people should be able to choose to euthanize the low functioning mentally retarded or autistic. This isn’t an issue of people injecting themselves into others business, it’s an issue ending human life or not.

Again you are trying to equate the living with the unborn. They’re not the same and you saying they are doesn’t make it so.

Again you are stripping women of their right to self determination and control of very personal decisions affecting their lives, their families and their futures.

IT’S NOT YOUR DECISION. YOU HAVE NO VOICE HERE.

The unborn are living. There is no other classification for them. It’s not kind of life, it’s not kind of human, it is human life. That’s not my assertion, that is science. If you believe it’s morally wrong to kill butterflys, then it is also morally wrong to kill their caterpillar and cocoon forms.

The choice begins in the act of participating in reproduction. If you do not want a baby, use one of the many very cheap, available, easy to use and extremely effective options to prevent that. Get mirena, take a pill once a day, throw on a hat before hand. People need to be responsible. Using contraception isn’t as hard as planning for retirement, it is taking incredibly easy steps and effective steps to prevent pregnancy. Eliminating the need for abortion is probably one of the easiest problems we could solve in society. Contraception is way more affordable, way safer, and way less emotionally stressful then worrying that you might be pregnant, finding out that you’re pregnant, wrestling with the decisions of to keep or not to keep, and having to undergo invasive surgery. This is where the push should be, it shouldn’t be in pushing for abortion and saying abortion is totally fine. At one point the saying was abortion should be available, safe, and rare. The rare aspect has been completely discarded by the pro-choice side.

I think its time to men to don a condom instead of a female taking a pill. Put two on if you are worried about it, its also prevents transfer of STD's. Time to men to avoid pregnancy and also prevent transfer of STD's.

 

[Penelope]

If you think abortion is wrong, don’t have an abortion. It’s that simple.

If you think killing a Jew is wrong, then don't kill a Jew. Otherwise, it's none of your business.

See how that works?

Except a Jew is already a living, breathing person, who has already been born.

An unborn child is just as much a person as the Jew. That's what you don't understand.

Then do you vote for those who would condemn the Jews to death, or do you like their socialist policies too much?

I'm a conservative Republican since birth, dipshit. That's why I hate the "very pro-choice" friend of the Clintons and New York limousine liberal Democrat Donald Trump.

If you hate it so much wear a condom. Speaking of Israel it has one of the most liberal of all abortion policies even subsides by our money they get. Jesus was a jew, so they say.

 

[Penelope]

If you think abortion is wrong, don’t have an abortion. It’s that simple.

If you think killing a Jew is wrong, then don't kill a Jew. Otherwise, it's none of your business.

See how that works?

Except a Jew is already a living, breathing person, who has already been born.

An unborn child is just as much a person as the Jew. That's what you don't understand.

The jewish religion says that when the fetus takes a breath, the soul enters it, so they must know right.

 

[Westender]

They probably just think you are fucking retarded. Like most of us do..

When I am in heaven and you are in hell, I will ask God to send me down to give you a drop of water, and God will say no.

So I'm sending you water now. Repent, or be damned.

I know you, I saw you preaching outside the game Saturday

 

[sakinago]

Permitting abortion is the state wiping people’s asses for them. People who, despite contraception being the cheapest, most available, and easier to use than anytime in history, still have unprotected sex and are shocked when participating in the act of reproduction produces a baby. And then they ask the government if it’s ok to take a mulligan on it. It’s undeniable human life that we turn our consciousness off too and say, “go ahead and scrape it out, shit happens.” We don’t say that when people get blitzed and then hop behind a wheel and kill someone. Just because you can’t physically see it, that makes it better? It’s letting people who should know better make stupid decisions and erasing the consequences of that decision for them.

What part of this is ANY OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS????

The decision to have a baby is none of your concern. It’s not your life. It’s not your family. You don’t want to be responsible for this child. You don’t want to pay for its health care, housing or education.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don’t have one.

It’s my business just like it’d be anyone’s business to say people should be able to choose to euthanize the low functioning mentally retarded or autistic. This isn’t an issue of people injecting themselves into others business, it’s an issue ending human life or not.

Again you are trying to equate the living with the unborn. They’re not the same and you saying they are doesn’t make it so.

Again you are stripping women of their right to self determination and control of very personal decisions affecting their lives, their families and their futures.

IT’S NOT YOUR DECISION. YOU HAVE NO VOICE HERE.

The unborn are living. There is no other classification for them. It’s not kind of life, it’s not kind of human, it is human life. That’s not my assertion, that is science. If you believe it’s morally wrong to kill butterflys, then it is also morally wrong to kill their caterpillar and cocoon forms.

The choice begins in the act of participating in reproduction. If you do not want a baby, use one of the many very cheap, available, easy to use and extremely effective options to prevent that. Get mirena, take a pill once a day, throw on a hat before hand. People need to be responsible. Using contraception isn’t as hard as planning for retirement, it is taking incredibly easy steps and effective steps to prevent pregnancy. Eliminating the need for abortion is probably one of the easiest problems we could solve in society. Contraception is way more affordable, way safer, and way less emotionally stressful then worrying that you might be pregnant, finding out that you’re pregnant, wrestling with the decisions of to keep or not to keep, and having to undergo invasive surgery. This is where the push should be, it shouldn’t be in pushing for abortion and saying abortion is totally fine. At one point the saying was abortion should be available, safe, and rare. The rare aspect has been completely discarded by the pro-choice side.

I think its time to men to don a condom instead of a female taking a pill. Put two on if you are worried about it, its also prevents transfer of STD's. Time to men to avoid pregnancy and also prevent transfer of STD's.

That’s probably wise in cases of one night stands or budding relationships. Men should definitely take more responsibility in the situation, culturally they just aren’t being taught that.

 

[Dragonlady]

What part of this is ANY OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS????

The decision to have a baby is none of your concern. It’s not your life. It’s not your family. You don’t want to be responsible for this child. You don’t want to pay for its health care, housing or education.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don’t have one.

It’s my business just like it’d be anyone’s business to say people should be able to choose to euthanize the low functioning mentally retarded or autistic. This isn’t an issue of people injecting themselves into others business, it’s an issue ending human life or not.

Again you are trying to equate the living with the unborn. They’re not the same and you saying they are doesn’t make it so.

Again you are stripping women of their right to self determination and control of very personal decisions affecting their lives, their families and their futures.

IT’S NOT YOUR DECISION. YOU HAVE NO VOICE HERE.

The unborn are living. There is no other classification for them. It’s not kind of life, it’s not kind of human, it is human life. That’s not my assertion, that is science. If you believe it’s morally wrong to kill butterflys, then it is also morally wrong to kill their caterpillar and cocoon forms.

The choice begins in the act of participating in reproduction. If you do not want a baby, use one of the many very cheap, available, easy to use and extremely effective options to prevent that. Get mirena, take a pill once a day, throw on a hat before hand. People need to be responsible. Using contraception isn’t as hard as planning for retirement, it is taking incredibly easy steps and effective steps to prevent pregnancy. Eliminating the need for abortion is probably one of the easiest problems we could solve in society. Contraception is way more affordable, way safer, and way less emotionally stressful then worrying that you might be pregnant, finding out that you’re pregnant, wrestling with the decisions of to keep or not to keep, and having to undergo invasive surgery. This is where the push should be, it shouldn’t be in pushing for abortion and saying abortion is totally fine. At one point the saying was abortion should be available, safe, and rare. The rare aspect has been completely discarded by the pro-choice side.

I think its time to men to don a condom instead of a female taking a pill. Put two on if you are worried about it, its also prevents transfer of STD's. Time to men to avoid pregnancy and also prevent transfer of STD's.

That’s probably wise in cases of one night stands or budding relationships. Men should definitely take more responsibility in the situation, culturally they just aren’t being taught that.

Sex education isn’t mandatory in US schools. It should be. There are simple things everyone needs to know about anatomy and how it functions, and they’re not learning these things st home, in large part because no one taught their parents properly.

Children who receive proper sex education instruction are less likely to become sexually involved at a young age because they have a

The abortion debate isn’t a question of morality. It’s a question of privacy and my right to control my life and the size of my family.

You keep trying to make this discussion about something else - your version of morality, or what you think your God would want.

I chose to have my baby. There was a cost. I never got my MBA. And I’ve never regretted my decision. But it was my decision to make.

Another friend found out she was pregnant after she had separated from her husband. She chose to end the pregnancy and wait until she was in a better situation. She had just moved to a new city to start a new life and hadn’t even found a job at that point. She also wanted to sever all ties with her husband going forward. A child is an unbreakable tie.

I am a religious woman. I believe that God have us the ability to choose. Not all embryos are viable. Just as all conditions are not ideal. God gave us choice because in times of war, famine, or other catastrophes, it’s not always possible or reasonable for women to have babies. Sometimes, the risk to both mother and child is too great.

Whatever your beliefs, allowing women to make their own choices based on their own beliefs and their own situations is the best route to go.

Pro-choice is the only unreasonable solution.

No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.

Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

If you had half a brain, you’d google the question first before making a complete fool of yourself. On the other hand conservatives are incapable of fact checking and I have yet to meet one with even half a brain so let me help:

Abortion Denied: Consequences for Mother and Child | HuffPost

Children Born After Unplanned Pregnancies and Cognitive Development at 3 Years: Social Differentials in the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...ct_unintended_childbearing_future_sawhill.pdf

Consequences for Children of Their Birth Planning Status

I didn’t have too because I am quite familiar with the literature behind IQ studies. You apparently don’t even read your own articles, and don’t understand concepts like correlation/causation, or sources and methods, or controls vs meta studies. If you would’ve read a bit, none of your articles say a single thing about IQ scores. The truth about IQ is that no matter what we have tried, nothing we do can increase or decrease IQ scores outside of very minor variations that do not seem to last over extended periods of time. They are kind of dismal findings, but that’s the fact of the matter, at least for now unless we stumble across some sort of major breakthrough. Your articles will cite behavioral and developmental problems, but do not even try to infer direct causality (or at least I hope they didn’t as I skimmed over some of the sections). If they did, that’d be a absolute miscarriage of science. Especially since we’ve known for a long ass time about children raised in single parent families and the stark and undeniable tendencies towards behavioral and developmental problems (that also can lead to problems in education, way different than IQ) vs kids raised by two parents. When primarily studying a group of women with “mistimed” pregnancies, it’s pretty easily inferred that these women with “mistimed” pregnancies have a much larger representation of single mothers over the mean. All these studies, as far as I can tell, are all meta-studies. Where they are basically data-mining information. The problem with these is that there are not enough controls built into the “studies”, and all these studies are sometimes good for is maybe pointing out a trend that should be investigated further, but that’s about it. There are so many variables that aren’t even addressed in these studies, let alone the lack of controls. I think there’s certainly some truth to them, but they’re also “no shit Sherlock,” studies basically pointing out that the sky is blue, but not able to tell you why.

I am quite capable of reading and comprehending studies my little condescending twit.

And I always read links before I post them.

 

[buttercup]

The whole debate is not about when the fetus has life. The debate is whether or not a woman is entitled to make private decisions about her life and her body without state interference. Does she in fact have “security of person” as set out in the Constitiution and the Bill of Rights.

If you actually believe that life doesn't start until birth, and that there's nothing wrong with any abortion throughout the entire pregnancy, then you basically support infanticide. Why, because by your logic it is perfectly acceptable for a woman who is one day away from delivery to butcher her full-term, healthy baby… for no reason at all....simply because the baby is inside of her. Is that what you really believe?

Please answer this question honestly. Look at the baby below and please confirm that you believe it is perfectly acceptable to ram scissors into the back of his head, and suck out his brain, for no reason at all except that the baby happens to be inside the mother. Please answer with a yes or no. You have stated repeatedly that you believe life begins at birth, and that there's nothing wrong with abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. So please confirm that you see nothing wrong with killing the baby below, and even a baby who is older, that is no different than a newborn.

 

[buttercup]

This image shows the complete illogic of Dragonlady's (very appropriate screenname, btw) position. The absurdity of making location what defines Humanity is demonstrated in this example.

 

[sakinago]

It’s my business just like it’d be anyone’s business to say people should be able to choose to euthanize the low functioning mentally retarded or autistic. This isn’t an issue of people injecting themselves into others business, it’s an issue ending human life or not.

Again you are trying to equate the living with the unborn. They’re not the same and you saying they are doesn’t make it so.

Again you are stripping women of their right to self determination and control of very personal decisions affecting their lives, their families and their futures.

IT’S NOT YOUR DECISION. YOU HAVE NO VOICE HERE.

The unborn are living. There is no other classification for them. It’s not kind of life, it’s not kind of human, it is human life. That’s not my assertion, that is science. If you believe it’s morally wrong to kill butterflys, then it is also morally wrong to kill their caterpillar and cocoon forms.

The choice begins in the act of participating in reproduction. If you do not want a baby, use one of the many very cheap, available, easy to use and extremely effective options to prevent that. Get mirena, take a pill once a day, throw on a hat before hand. People need to be responsible. Using contraception isn’t as hard as planning for retirement, it is taking incredibly easy steps and effective steps to prevent pregnancy. Eliminating the need for abortion is probably one of the easiest problems we could solve in society. Contraception is way more affordable, way safer, and way less emotionally stressful then worrying that you might be pregnant, finding out that you’re pregnant, wrestling with the decisions of to keep or not to keep, and having to undergo invasive surgery. This is where the push should be, it shouldn’t be in pushing for abortion and saying abortion is totally fine. At one point the saying was abortion should be available, safe, and rare. The rare aspect has been completely discarded by the pro-choice side.

I think its time to men to don a condom instead of a female taking a pill. Put two on if you are worried about it, its also prevents transfer of STD's. Time to men to avoid pregnancy and also prevent transfer of STD's.

That’s probably wise in cases of one night stands or budding relationships. Men should definitely take more responsibility in the situation, culturally they just aren’t being taught that.

Sex education isn’t mandatory in US schools. It should be. There are simple things everyone needs to know about anatomy and how it functions, and they’re not learning these things st home, in large part because no one taught their parents properly.

Children who receive proper sex education instruction are less likely to become sexually involved at a young age because they have a

No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.

Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

If you had half a brain, you’d google the question first before making a complete fool of yourself. On the other hand conservatives are incapable of fact checking and I have yet to meet one with even half a brain so let me help:

Abortion Denied: Consequences for Mother and Child | HuffPost

Children Born After Unplanned Pregnancies and Cognitive Development at 3 Years: Social Differentials in the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...ct_unintended_childbearing_future_sawhill.pdf

Consequences for Children of Their Birth Planning Status

I didn’t have too because I am quite familiar with the literature behind IQ studies. You apparently don’t even read your own articles, and don’t understand concepts like correlation/causation, or sources and methods, or controls vs meta studies. If you would’ve read a bit, none of your articles say a single thing about IQ scores. The truth about IQ is that no matter what we have tried, nothing we do can increase or decrease IQ scores outside of very minor variations that do not seem to last over extended periods of time. They are kind of dismal findings, but that’s the fact of the matter, at least for now unless we stumble across some sort of major breakthrough. Your articles will cite behavioral and developmental problems, but do not even try to infer direct causality (or at least I hope they didn’t as I skimmed over some of the sections). If they did, that’d be a absolute miscarriage of science. Especially since we’ve known for a long ass time about children raised in single parent families and the stark and undeniable tendencies towards behavioral and developmental problems (that also can lead to problems in education, way different than IQ) vs kids raised by two parents. When primarily studying a group of women with “mistimed” pregnancies, it’s pretty easily inferred that these women with “mistimed” pregnancies have a much larger representation of single mothers over the mean. All these studies, as far as I can tell, are all meta-studies. Where they are basically data-mining information. The problem with these is that there are not enough controls built into the “studies”, and all these studies are sometimes good for is maybe pointing out a trend that should be investigated further, but that’s about it. There are so many variables that aren’t even addressed in these studies, let alone the lack of controls. I think there’s certainly some truth to them, but they’re also “no shit Sherlock,” studies basically pointing out that the sky is blue, but not able to tell you why.

I am quite capable of reading and comprehending studies my little condescending twit.

And I always read links before I post them.

I don’t know of any schools that do not teach sex Ed. At least not public. Do you mean not mandatory, as in parents can pull their kids out? The percentage of kids of child bearing years who don’t know about birth control has to be below .0001%, were homeschooled, and probably practice abstinence anyway.

No the problem isn’t all in lack of education, it’s the youth doing as the youth do, thinking they can get away with skipping steps and everything will turn out fine. Young people stupidly think that sex is without consequence and is all that matters because that’s what the movies, tv shows, music, and overall culture teaches them. There was a reason for the dad cleaning his shotgun when the boyfriend comes over stereotype, the whole culturally enforced monogamy served a purpose. If you got pregnant out of wedlock, and the man didn’t do the honorable thing. You were screwed. Your kids we’re screwed. It was a terrible situation. Now that purpose is not a necessary with birth control, but people need to still understand sex is not inconsequential. So it’s not the lack of sex Ed, just like it isn’t the lack of educating kids how bad heroin is, yet that’s now an epidemic effectiving suburban and rural communities alike. It’s a cultural problem. It’s Katy perry singing about sex, and Mac miller glorifying drug use. Those are the idols of our youth. That’s who they desire to emulate.

 

[Dragonlady]

Your argument isn’t whether or not a fetus is cute and adorable. It’s whether it has a right to life which supercedes any rights it’s mother has to privacy or security of person. And the answer is still NO.

Your arguments are still based on the false notion that abortions are a matter of convenience for single women and this is simply false.

Abortions which take place after 20 weeks are the medically necesssry abortions and those must remain available. No woman carries a child for 6 months and casually changed her mind about the pregnancy.

There is simply no reason whatsoever to criminalize abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. These are medical decisions and again. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN HAS AN ABORTION.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

 

[sakinago]

It’s my business just like it’d be anyone’s business to say people should be able to choose to euthanize the low functioning mentally retarded or autistic. This isn’t an issue of people injecting themselves into others business, it’s an issue ending human life or not.

Again you are trying to equate the living with the unborn. They’re not the same and you saying they are doesn’t make it so.

Again you are stripping women of their right to self determination and control of very personal decisions affecting their lives, their families and their futures.

IT’S NOT YOUR DECISION. YOU HAVE NO VOICE HERE.

The unborn are living. There is no other classification for them. It’s not kind of life, it’s not kind of human, it is human life. That’s not my assertion, that is science. If you believe it’s morally wrong to kill butterflys, then it is also morally wrong to kill their caterpillar and cocoon forms.

The choice begins in the act of participating in reproduction. If you do not want a baby, use one of the many very cheap, available, easy to use and extremely effective options to prevent that. Get mirena, take a pill once a day, throw on a hat before hand. People need to be responsible. Using contraception isn’t as hard as planning for retirement, it is taking incredibly easy steps and effective steps to prevent pregnancy. Eliminating the need for abortion is probably one of the easiest problems we could solve in society. Contraception is way more affordable, way safer, and way less emotionally stressful then worrying that you might be pregnant, finding out that you’re pregnant, wrestling with the decisions of to keep or not to keep, and having to undergo invasive surgery. This is where the push should be, it shouldn’t be in pushing for abortion and saying abortion is totally fine. At one point the saying was abortion should be available, safe, and rare. The rare aspect has been completely discarded by the pro-choice side.

I think its time to men to don a condom instead of a female taking a pill. Put two on if you are worried about it, its also prevents transfer of STD's. Time to men to avoid pregnancy and also prevent transfer of STD's.

That’s probably wise in cases of one night stands or budding relationships. Men should definitely take more responsibility in the situation, culturally they just aren’t being taught that.

Sex education isn’t mandatory in US schools. It should be. There are simple things everyone needs to know about anatomy and how it functions, and they’re not learning these things st home, in large part because no one taught their parents properly.

Children who receive proper sex education instruction are less likely to become sexually involved at a young age because they have a

No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.

Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

If you had half a brain, you’d google the question first before making a complete fool of yourself. On the other hand conservatives are incapable of fact checking and I have yet to meet one with even half a brain so let me help:

Abortion Denied: Consequences for Mother and Child | HuffPost

Children Born After Unplanned Pregnancies and Cognitive Development at 3 Years: Social Differentials in the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...ct_unintended_childbearing_future_sawhill.pdf

Consequences for Children of Their Birth Planning Status

I didn’t have too because I am quite familiar with the literature behind IQ studies. You apparently don’t even read your own articles, and don’t understand concepts like correlation/causation, or sources and methods, or controls vs meta studies. If you would’ve read a bit, none of your articles say a single thing about IQ scores. The truth about IQ is that no matter what we have tried, nothing we do can increase or decrease IQ scores outside of very minor variations that do not seem to last over extended periods of time. They are kind of dismal findings, but that’s the fact of the matter, at least for now unless we stumble across some sort of major breakthrough. Your articles will cite behavioral and developmental problems, but do not even try to infer direct causality (or at least I hope they didn’t as I skimmed over some of the sections). If they did, that’d be a absolute miscarriage of science. Especially since we’ve known for a long ass time about children raised in single parent families and the stark and undeniable tendencies towards behavioral and developmental problems (that also can lead to problems in education, way different than IQ) vs kids raised by two parents. When primarily studying a group of women with “mistimed” pregnancies, it’s pretty easily inferred that these women with “mistimed” pregnancies have a much larger representation of single mothers over the mean. All these studies, as far as I can tell, are all meta-studies. Where they are basically data-mining information. The problem with these is that there are not enough controls built into the “studies”, and all these studies are sometimes good for is maybe pointing out a trend that should be investigated further, but that’s about it. There are so many variables that aren’t even addressed in these studies, let alone the lack of controls. I think there’s certainly some truth to them, but they’re also “no shit Sherlock,” studies basically pointing out that the sky is blue, but not able to tell you why.

I am quite capable of reading and comprehending studies my little condescending twit.

And I always read links before I post them.

You said I wanted to enact the handmaidens tale scenario, and then suggested I was an idiot for not googling your IQ claims...and I’m the condescending one?

If you read them, then why did you post them? If you didn’t understand what you yourself posted, then maybe you aren’t the best advocate for abortion. Or maybe you should educate yourself more on the matter, which would require intellectual honesty as opposed to assertions without any basis.

 

[buttercup]

Your argument isn’t whether or not a fetus is cute and adorable. It’s whether it has a right to life which supercedes any rights it’s mother has to privacy or security of person. And the answer is still NO.

Your arguments are still based on the false notion that abortions are a matter of convenience for single women and this is simply false.

Abortions which take place after 20 weeks are the medically necesssry abortions and those must remain available. No woman carries a child for 6 months and casually changed her mind about the pregnancy.

There is simply no reason whatsoever to criminalize abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. These are medical decisions and again. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN HAS AN ABORTION.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Who was this directed to? You didn't post a quote. And you didn't answer my question. Do you see anything wrong with killing a full-term, healthy baby one day before delivery, for no reason? Please answer yes or no.

 

[sakinago]

Your argument isn’t whether or not a fetus is cute and adorable. It’s whether it has a right to life which supercedes any rights it’s mother has to privacy or security of person. And the answer is still NO.

Your arguments are still based on the false notion that abortions are a matter of convenience for single women and this is simply false.

Abortions which take place after 20 weeks are the medically necesssry abortions and those must remain available. No woman carries a child for 6 months and casually changed her mind about the pregnancy.

There is simply no reason whatsoever to criminalize abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. These are medical decisions and again. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN HAS AN ABORTION.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

So you believe abortion should be legal up until birth? Say a guy walked out on a woman right before she had the baby, she should be able to say “well f this, I can’t afford or handle this on my own”. That’s ok to you?

 

[Penelope]

The whole debate is not about when the fetus has life. The debate is whether or not a woman is entitled to make private decisions about her life and her body without state interference. Does she in fact have “security of person” as set out in the Constitiution and the Bill of Rights.

If you actually believe that life doesn't start until birth, and that there's nothing wrong with any abortion throughout the entire pregnancy, then you basically support infanticide. Why, because by your logic it is perfectly acceptable for a woman who is one day away from delivery to butcher her full-term, healthy baby… for no reason at all....simply because the baby is inside of her. Is that what you really believe?

Please answer this question honestly. Look at the baby below and please confirm that you believe it is perfectly acceptable to ram scissors into the back of his head, and suck out his brain, for no reason at all except that the baby happens to be inside the mother. Please answer with a yes or no. You have stated repeatedly that you believe life begins at birth, and that there's nothing wrong with abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. So please confirm that you see nothing wrong with killing the baby below, and even a baby who is older, that is no different than a newborn.

What age is that fetus?

 

[Penelope]

Ahhh, so you've decided that this one thing of all others in the world is just so special and important that it is exempt from YOUR OWN MORAL STANDARDS. As far as I'm concerned, what I just heard is, "Right and wrong are defined by what I, and only I, want at the moment."

The abortion debate isn’t a question of morality. It’s a question of privacy and my right to control my life and the size of my family.

You keep trying to make this discussion about something else - your version of morality, or what you think your God would want.

I chose to have my baby. There was a cost. I never got my MBA. And I’ve never regretted my decision. But it was my decision to make.

Another friend found out she was pregnant after she had separated from her husband. She chose to end the pregnancy and wait until she was in a better situation. She had just moved to a new city to start a new life and hadn’t even found a job at that point. She also wanted to sever all ties with her husband going forward. A child is an unbreakable tie.

I am a religious woman. I believe that God have us the ability to choose. Not all embryos are viable. Just as all conditions are not ideal. God gave us choice because in times of war, famine, or other catastrophes, it’s not always possible or reasonable for women to have babies. Sometimes, the risk to both mother and child is too great.

Whatever your beliefs, allowing women to make their own choices based on their own beliefs and their own situations is the best route to go.

Pro-choice is the only unreasonable solution.

Excuse me, WHO appointed you to decide what is and isn't a question of morality? At what point did I, or anyone, indicate that we gave a piss into a windstorm whether or not YOU thought something involved morality, or even that we acknowledged your ability to recognize morality? Of all the unmitigated, sheer nerve!

You know the REAL reason why the abortion issue is so rancorous and unsolvable? It's because self-absorbed, tunnel-visioned leftists like you flat frigging REFUSE to even try to understand where pro-lifers are coming from, and think it's perfectly acceptable to stick your fingers in your ears and dismissively issue statements like "It isn't a question of morality". Newflash, honey: YOU are not defining the question all by your onesie, based on nothing more than, "I want to do this, and therefore THIS is what reality is going to be, now give me my way!" There's a whole other side to this debate, and waving them away airily is just another way of saying, "I know I'm wrong, but I don't want to have to admit it."

Just for the record, I didn't bother to read a single other word of your self-serving twaddle. Your first sentence said everything that needs to be known about you and your argument. You don't merit the respect needed to read the rest of your post as though you're going to say something worthwhile.

If you didn’t read my post, your ridiculous rant about it has no validity.

Who are YOU to judge what is moral or right?

Your not “pro-life” and never have been. Your opposed to abortion but that wasn’t an attractive thing to most people so you gussied up your anti-woman, anti-abortion misogyny by dressing it up as “pro-life”.

None are your policies are “pro-life”. They’re all anti-abortion. You don’t care about women dying in childbirth at high levels in the US. You only care about banning abortion.

Talk to the hand, Ego Lass. You and I both know that you'd declare my "rant" to "have no validity" no matter what happened, because you consistently make it very clear that anything you don't like and don't want to be true is by definition invalid.

My "rant" was about the part I did read, so unless you're now going to try to pretend that you did NOT relegate to yourself the right to dictate what the debate is about based solely on your own personal whims, it is 100% valid.

What's invalid is any sleazy, self-serving attempt to justify your garbage and your hubris, which is why I didn't bother reading it.

Who am I to judge what's moral or right? I'm a human being who is a citizen of this society, and thus has the right and responsibility to participate in the decision-making as to what kind of society it is. Just like you are.

And you know shit about "my policies" or anything else, no matter how much omniscience and infallibility you (very mistakenly) flatter yourself that you have. But then, it's not like I could expect you to talk about anything I ACTUALLY have to say, since you in your supremeness have declared that my half of the debate isn't part of the debate at all, haven't you? So I guess it follows that you'd have to make up my argument for me and waste everyone's time telling me how wrong "my" argument is.

The only real question right now is why you're even bothering to post to this message board, Your Majesty, since you're carrying on BOTH sides of the debate in your own lint-filled skull.

Now you’re just blithering.

The whole debate is not about when the fetus has life. The debate is whether or not a woman is entitled to make private decisions about her life and her body without state interference. Does she in fact have “security of person” as set out in the Constitiution and the Bill of Rights.

It’s a very simple yes or no question.

I live in a country that has no abortion law. No restrictions on abortion at all. And the government pays for your abortion - no copay, no extra billing.

Our abortion rate is half what yours is. Tell me again how you oppose abortion because I don’t believe you for a second.

In the US the GOP runs on pro life, not pro health.

 

[Penelope]

That’s because there is nothing else remotely similar to pregnancy and childbirth, and nothing that impacts a woman’s life more than the decision as to whether or not to have a baby. This is true regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy.

And here’s reality. Leaving this decision to the woman, her partner and her caregiver’s costs the state nothing. All of this bullshit around trying to force a woman to have a child she cannot afford, is an expensive waste of taxpayers’ money.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don’t have one. This is my belief. I believe that abortion is wrong, so I didn’t have one.

Choice is something I have marched for. For myself and my daughters. Not having an abortion is a choice.

Ahhh, so you've decided that this one thing of all others in the world is just so special and important that it is exempt from YOUR OWN MORAL STANDARDS. As far as I'm concerned, what I just heard is, "Right and wrong are defined by what I, and only I, want at the moment."

The abortion debate isn’t a question of morality. It’s a question of privacy and my right to control my life and the size of my family.

You keep trying to make this discussion about something else - your version of morality, or what you think your God would want.

I chose to have my baby. There was a cost. I never got my MBA. And I’ve never regretted my decision. But it was my decision to make.

Another friend found out she was pregnant after she had separated from her husband. She chose to end the pregnancy and wait until she was in a better situation. She had just moved to a new city to start a new life and hadn’t even found a job at that point. She also wanted to sever all ties with her husband going forward. A child is an unbreakable tie.

I am a religious woman. I believe that God have us the ability to choose. Not all embryos are viable. Just as all conditions are not ideal. God gave us choice because in times of war, famine, or other catastrophes, it’s not always possible or reasonable for women to have babies. Sometimes, the risk to both mother and child is too great.

Whatever your beliefs, allowing women to make their own choices based on their own beliefs and their own situations is the best route to go.

Pro-choice is the only unreasonable solution.

No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.

Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.