Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortionYou'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.Would know better than what?
Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue. If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed. That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it. THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortionSorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue. If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed. That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it. THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
You ARE pro abortion
I must have missed that in the Constitution. Maybe you should look up the article in question, and send it to chief justices who decided otherwise. As a matter of fact, even murder is not a federal crime.
You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortionThere is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
You ARE pro abortion
I must have missed that in the Constitution. Maybe you should look up the article in question, and send it to chief justices who decided otherwise. As a matter of fact, even murder is not a federal crime.
"If it's not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist . . . because I'm too pig-stupid to remember more than one document!"
Shes right and you know it.NotYourBody. Not your body either because one day the Grim Reaper is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAOStop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
I'm still in control. You are not.
But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus. Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs. Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years. The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks. It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week. When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion. The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want. Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.…and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.Now let me get this straight. You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate. Maybe both.
I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories. They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic. And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
If left alone, it would not surviveSo now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.
If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.
So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.
I certainly hope so.
It will be if left alone.
Where does it say that?The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.
Epic fail everytime
The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites. Either life is sacred, or it is not.
So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law
Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."
.
Is all innocent life sacred, or is it not?Sorry, did you just tell us we "have" to support something because YOU decided that our beliefs required it? And who was it that elected you Supreme Arbiter of What Other People's Beliefs Have To Include?The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites. Either life is sacred, or it is not. So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder.Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way.
"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others.
It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can.
How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. I won't hold my breath.
Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate.
I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive.
Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical.
Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
you mean the same NK piglet that trump loves long time?
I seem to be so very good at reducing you Leftists to clearly false and insipid posts.
But.....I have had a great deal of practice.......
but but but your dear leader says that they are ' in love '!!!!!! remember or are you choosing ignorance?
That failed once already.....put a little effort into this, you dunce.
....come back when the conversation gets around to monster trucks and favorite Crayola.
oh i see - you don't wanna acknowledge the love affair between the dear leaders....
but will justify a ridiculous meme
yep... you are being your typical circus act again.
As the saying goes, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to help a Liberal.
Here's help: this is what everyone recognizes about you:
Things more trustworthy than you:
a. Mexican tap water
b. A rattlesnake with a 'pet me' sign
c. Taking the elevator with Ray Rice
d. Bill Cosby as the bartender
e. A Jimmy Carter economic plan
f. emails from a Nigerian princess
g. Brian Williams newscast.
h. The Jeffrey Dahmer Diner special of the day
I. Obama’s promise about your doctor
That's how it's done......bet you wish you could be as clever while skewering the enemy.
Now, do everyone a favor and get lost.
So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning). Dead people are DEAD. They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
Life
Definition
noun, plural: lives
noun, plural: lives
(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't. (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance). This would be included in adaptation. Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him. The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.
You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.
It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights. Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.
If that’s what you believe, that’s your CHOICE but leave the rest of us out of it.
IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
As to your last sentence, imagine a husband who wants to beat his wife senseless on the daily making this argument: IF IT'S NOT YOUR WIFE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
THINK, woman, for pity's sake
You first. The woman is living, breathing and fully alive. According to you, because women can control how many children to have and when, there is no law to protect living people from assault.
Again, IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE. Allowing others to exercise their rights and freedoms according to their beliefs is the Constitutional and American thing to do. Trying to legally impose your religious beliefs on others, violates the Constitution.
What on earth are you talking about--this is profoundly stupid. You can't even seem to grasp how stupid your talking point of "If you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one" is. That's like saying, "If you think rape is wrong, just don't get raped"....but it's fine if someone else gets raped?
Good Allah you guys are dummReally? What parents?The parents. See how easy this isI think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus. Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs. Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years. The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks. It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week. When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion. The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want. Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.…and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.
The problem of what to do with that baby once it's born.
Who will raise it?
Who is responsible for such a being?
par·ent
/ˈperənt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
plural noun: parents
- 1.
a father or mother.
I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....
You are a joke.You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.Here's my review of this thread - NotYourBody Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
So far....no takers. So much Winning!
So far … no takers … and we all know why.
because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+ gestational fetus is not a baby................. only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
that's why.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by whom pray tell? the same 'christian' that started this silly rant? who kept trying to move the religion goal posts? the same one who never did answer the quandary that the OT master of the universe dealt her? the same one who has yet to answer whether she would be happy to have her taxes raised to pay for all them thar kiddies forced upon society & will need their health, nutritional, clothing, housing, & educational needs met?
<pfffft>
Is an "adolescent" human? A "pre-teen"? A teenager? A senior citizen?
A "zygote" and an "embryo" and a "fetus" are DESCRIPTIONS OF STAGED OF DEVELOPMENT of the human baby.
A baby chicken starts as each if these, but it IS a chicken, just at a HUMAN in the embryo or fetal stage IS HUMAN.
You guys just keep losing but you're too damn stupid to realize it.
Is all innocent life sacred, or is it not?The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites. Either life is sacred, or it is not.
So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law
Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."
.
Sorry, did you just tell us we "have" to support something because YOU decided that our beliefs required it? And who was it that elected you Supreme Arbiter of What Other People's Beliefs Have To Include?
.
Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder.Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way.
"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others.
It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can.
How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. I won't hold my breath.
Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate.
I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive.
Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical.
Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
I didn't realize anyone even read his posts. I know I see his name and just keep scrolling. I'd put him on ignore, but it's more effort than he's worth.
I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....
Only when one of you unhinged loons lose your minds over one and beat someone over it..
The problem is, they all agree. They want a world where THEY do as they please, without responsibility, and leave YOU and me to pay their way thru life. Self-centered bastards!You keep tripping over reality then picking picking yourself up and carrying on as if nothing happenedSpeaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3FHint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
That one is as stupid as a sack of hammers
I have a niece in Texas getting an abortion. Please send her a check for $1,815.
Abortion:
(uh-bawr-shuh) n
The modern-day child sacrifice to the God of self.
