Roe v. Wade will be overturned soon, and then abortion will be outlawed in most states...

[Jarlaxle]

What rights will women have regarding their bodies?

Umm if I kill a pregnant woman I’m most likely charged with 2 murder charges.. STOP KILLING BABIES!

Fetal homicide laws do not apply to the pregnant woman who chooses to terminate her own pregnancy.

That's a lie.

 

[Jarlaxle]

nobody is a 'pro abort'

No, that's wrong. Some people ABSOLUTELY ARE pro-abortion.

 

[Dragonlady]

nobody is a 'pro abort'

No, that's wrong. Some people ABSOLUTELY ARE pro-abortion.

No, they're not. They're in favour of minding their own business. They believe that a woman has a right to determine if she's ready and able to carry this child to term, or to raise it. This is not your decision because it's not your life, or your baby.

Having a baby isn't a punishment for having sex. It's a lifelong commitment to another human being. More unbreakable than marriage. As such, it should not be undertaken lightly, or when you're not fully and able ready to commit to that child. For poor families, another child may mean the difference between staying in their home, or living on the street.

 

[Chuz Life]

No, they're not. They're in favour of minding their own business. They believe that a woman has a right to determine if she's ready and able to carry this child to term, or to raise it. This is not your decision because it's not your life, or your baby..

Your fellow leftardz are gonna be disappointed in you.

How can she "carry a child to term" if (according to leftardz) it's not a child?

 

[IM2]

" My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life."

So this person is for the abolition of the death penalty.

 

[Chuz Life]

" My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life."

So this person is for the abolition of the death penalty.

You know. . . .

We have a Constitution that allows for the Death Penalty (following due process and an appeals process)

You should read it sometime.

Then, you might just realize how much more protections a convicted MURDERER is afforded than a child in the womb is.

 

[IM2]

" My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life."

So this person is for the abolition of the death penalty.

You know. . . .

We have a Constitution that allows for the Death Penalty (following due process and an appeals process)

You should read it sometime.

Then, you might just realize how much more protections a convicted MURDERER is afforded than a child in the womb is.

I've read the constitution. If you knew anything about it you would not be making this argument. So STFU.

 

[Chuz Life]

" My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life."

So this person is for the abolition of the death penalty.

You know. . . .

We have a Constitution that allows for the Death Penalty (following due process and an appeals process)

You should read it sometime.

Then, you might just realize how much more protections a convicted MURDERER is afforded than a child in the womb is.

I've read the constitution. If you knew anything about it you would not be making this argument. So STFU.

The Constitution says that "all persons (not only citizens) are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. . . "

That's pretty inclusive, isn't it?

That would seemingly include "ALL persons" of any race, creed, sex, age, stage or level of development, status or level of dependency. . .

Would it not?

 

[IM2]

" My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life."

So this person is for the abolition of the death penalty.

You know. . . .

We have a Constitution that allows for the Death Penalty (following due process and an appeals process)

You should read it sometime.

Then, you might just realize how much more protections a convicted MURDERER is afforded than a child in the womb is.

I've read the constitution. If you knew anything about it you would not be making this argument. So STFU.

The Constitution says that "all persons (not only citizens) are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. . . "

That's pretty inclusive, isn't it?

That would seemingly include "ALL persons" of any race, creed, sex, age, stage or level of development, status or level of dependency. . .

Would it not?

Tell that to the immigrants your boy has locked up in Texas.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Constitution says that "all persons (not only citizens) are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. . . "

That's pretty inclusive, isn't it?

That would seemingly include "ALL persons" of any race, creed, sex, age, stage or level of development, status or level of dependency. . .

Would it not?

Tell that to the immigrants your boy has locked up in Texas.

LOL.

Again, the concept of criminality and the concept that the Constitution allows for criminal prosecutions (and detainment) sails right over your head.

 

[JoeB131]

Your fellow leftardz are gonna be disappointed in you.

How can she "carry a child to term" if (according to leftardz) it's not a child?

Because it's not a child until it is carried to term.

Civil rights for spooge and medical waste is not the way to go.

 

[DBA]

nobody is a 'pro abort'

No, that's wrong. Some people ABSOLUTELY ARE pro-abortion.

No, they're not. They're in favour of minding their own business. They believe that a woman has a right to determine if she's ready and able to carry this child to term, or to raise it. This is not your decision because it's not your life, or your baby.

Having a baby isn't a punishment for having sex. It's a lifelong commitment to another human being. More unbreakable than marriage. As such, it should not be undertaken lightly, or when you're not fully and able ready to commit to that child. For poor families, another child may mean the difference between staying in their home, or living on the street.

Just curious what you think about the man's rights? You said "ot is not your decision because it is not your life, or your baby." In the case of the father, it is his life and his baby. Should he have a say? He certainly can be held finanacially responsible if the child is born. It is also 50% his. Seems like women tend to forget this little tidbit of information.

For poor families on public assistance, it is not the difference between the streets or staying in their homes. They get more money for having kids.

 

[DBA]

Your fellow leftardz are gonna be disappointed in you.

How can she "carry a child to term" if (according to leftardz) it's not a child?

Because it's not a child until it is carried to term.

Civil rights for spooge and medical waste is not the way to go.

This is absolutely ridicoulous, but I shouldn't expect any more from an immoral atheist.

 

[JoeB131]

This is absolutely ridicoulous, but I shouldn't expect any more from an immoral atheist.

Again, if you need to cower in fear of an invisible sky pixie to be a moral person, that doesn't say much for you.

Just curious what you think about the man's rights? You said "ot is not your decision because it is not your life, or your baby." In the case of the father, it is his life and his baby. Should he have a say? He certainly can be held finanacially responsible if the child is born. It is also 50% his. Seems like women tend to forget this little tidbit of information.

Again, when men can start carrying baby's to term, dealing with morning sickness and lower back pain, then they get a say.. If men had to carry the babies, the birth rate would drop to extinction levels.

For poor families on public assistance, it is not the difference between the streets or staying in their homes. They get more money for having kids.

Wow, another racist republican who thinks that poor people are having babies to collect welfare checks.

 

[playtime]

nobody is a 'pro abort'

No, that's wrong. Some people ABSOLUTELY ARE pro-abortion.

no, they are pro choice.

 

[playtime]

" My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life."

So this person is for the abolition of the death penalty.

You know. . . .

We have a Constitution that allows for the Death Penalty (following due process and an appeals process)

You should read it sometime.

Then, you might just realize how much more protections a convicted MURDERER is afforded than a child in the womb is.

I've read the constitution. If you knew anything about it you would not be making this argument. So STFU.

The Constitution says that "all persons (not only citizens) are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. . . "

That's pretty inclusive, isn't it?

That would seemingly include "ALL persons" of any race, creed, sex, age, stage or level of development, status or level of dependency. . .

Would it not?

um....

the 8th amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

btw - i am both pro choice & favor the death penalty. & unlike pro birthers...
i am consistent

 

[playtime]

nobody is a 'pro abort'

No, that's wrong. Some people ABSOLUTELY ARE pro-abortion.

No, they're not. They're in favour of minding their own business. They believe that a woman has a right to determine if she's ready and able to carry this child to term, or to raise it. This is not your decision because it's not your life, or your baby.

Having a baby isn't a punishment for having sex. It's a lifelong commitment to another human being. More unbreakable than marriage. As such, it should not be undertaken lightly, or when you're not fully and able ready to commit to that child. For poor families, another child may mean the difference between staying in their home, or living on the street.

Just curious what you think about the man's rights? You said "ot is not your decision because it is not your life, or your baby." In the case of the father, it is his life and his baby. Should he have a say? He certainly can be held finanacially responsible if the child is born. It is also 50% his. Seems like women tend to forget this little tidbit of information.

For poor families on public assistance, it is not the difference between the streets or staying in their homes. They get more money for having kids.

of course the father - if he's not a rapist has a say; but there can only be ONE final decision on the matter. the one that has to carry to term.

no one else.

 

[martybegan]

The issue is what you define as a basic human right. Here the fight is between the right of a fetus to exist and the right of a woman to control her own body.

The woman was once in the fetal stage of her own life. Wasn't she?

The fact is, She was.

As for your assessment of "the issue?" I obviously disagree with your take on it and here's why.

You (arguably) physically exist as does a child in the womb.

Society does not have the right to take away your "right to exist." Does it?

Society certainly doesn't have the right to arbitrarily decide MY "right to exist." Does it yours?

As for the part of your comment about the conflict between the child's "right to exist" and the woman's right to "control her body." I have a question for you, about that.

If a total stranger were to catch you in a moment where you were completely unconscious and they took certain actions that resulted in YOU being connected to their body in such a way that you would die, if the connection is broken before 9 months time. . . . Would you or would you not have an arguably LEGAL right to maintain that physical relationship, until you can be safely separated?

Some societies can take away your right to exist, i.e. the death penalty. Ours is one of them. They can also take away various other rights via due process and imprisonment.

Again, I understand where you are going with this, you put the line at conception, but again I have a big fear of overreaching government, tempered by my belief in federalism as per the US Constitution. To me its up to the State Legislatures to figure it out.

My view is a compromise between my varying beliefs vis a vis individual freedom and my own morality.

 

[martybegan]

Roe is terrible law based on jiggery pokery. It made up a right and we have spent 4 decades now still fighting over it.

Naw, man, the One Percent have done a good job keeping Misogynists and Religious nuts fighting over it while they heisted the Middle Class.

You dumb-asses never ask why abortion never gets banned but the rich always get their tax cuts.

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

 

[martybegan]

Actually this is my federalism coming into play. I'm in NY so abortion will be just fine here.

And coming from a man who's a fan of BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE PEASANT, your ability to mind YOUR own business is just not there.

Hey, if you are a homophobic bigot, no one is going to drag you off to tolerance camp... YOu just have to treat gays just like all your other customers.

No Federalism. One abortion law for the whole country- the woman decides.

Of course you can excuse government overreach when it goes along with your fascist morality.

Nope, Federalism.

Want to change it? Amend the Constitution.