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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs š
Nope. Really. Itās not. Not even close. Not even in the ballpark. The woman could literally lay in bed all day every day. Watch tv. Read a book. Leave if she wants. Stay if she wants. Doesnāt even remotely resemble āslaveryā. Stop with the desperate hyperbole.It is when the carrier is being forced to against her will.No. Iām advocating that your comment is astoundingly desperate and ignorant. Itās not āslaveryā to carry a baby in your womb.Are you advocating slavery?Slavery is better than murder. Ask the judicial system.So there is a class of people who have the right to use another personās body against their will. Sounds a bit like slavery.
Now...why are you openly advocating for murder?
I think thats what you need to do. Youre the one that claimed a fetus was an adult female.Maybe ask an adult for help?Nope. Just checked that post and again there is no mention of parents killing toddlers.And then Botney reiterated it for the third time in post #268. So heās openly admitting it and youāre trying to deny he said what he admits to saying.
Exactly. And that womanās life is not at immediate risk due to that baby in the womb. So do not try to equate abortion to āself defenseā. Thatās absurd.But, we don't call self defense murder. We don't jail a woman for shooting a rapist.
And the woman is 100% not required to give her body to another. ANYONE!!lol. You act as if the baby intentionally, willfully showed up in the mothers womb. That is ludicrous, the baby is 100% innocent, do you understand that?
So, once a woman invites a man to put his penis in her MUST keep fucking until dude gets his?It was the mother's own actions that implicitly invited the baby, therefore baby has the right to be exactly where he or she is.
They may have a moral obligation, but they should not have a legal obligation. "Moral obligations" are the tools of statists.See above. Parents have a moral obligation to care for their child.
A true libertarian does not demand involuntary servitude by government force.lol. Nice rant, but a true libertarian doesnāt violate the nonaggression principle, and the most basic human right of all, the right to life. You are supporting āmight makes right.ā Deal with it.
Those against abortion don't know these many woman who want one and never will. they don't know their circumstances and don't care to know. they only want to control what they do. This decision should be between the woman and her doctor and NO ONE ELSE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PERIOD!!!
You men out there, would you be okay with the government telling you what medical procedure you could have, or what medication you could take? This is what many of you are advocating for the women of this country, and don't give me this shit about the sanctity of life, especially when your only concern for that "precious life" is until it clears the birth canal.
I have seen many of you telling her to keep her legs closed. Do you whack off every night instead of wanting to have sex with a woman because she chose to do what you told her to do? Or, do you try to have sex with every woman you've ever dated and to hell with that closed legs bullshit?
finally, men can buy condoms at every drug store and grocery store in this country, so why don't you put on one to prevent her from getting pregnant? Oh I know, because it just doesn't feel good! Birth control is a woman's responsibility. Well boys, if you force women to have babies they don't want, then dig deep into your wallets because you will be paying for those "precious babies" for the next 18 years!
Ever been pregnant?Nope. Really. Itās not. Not even close. Not even in the ballpark. The woman could literally lay in bed all day every day. Watch tv. Read a book. Leave if she wants. Stay if she wants. Doesnāt even remotely resemble āslaveryā. Stop with the desperate hyperbole.It is when the carrier is being forced to against her will.No. Iām advocating that your comment is astoundingly desperate and ignorant. Itās not āslaveryā to carry a baby in your womb.Are you advocating slavery?Slavery is better than murder. Ask the judicial system.So there is a class of people who have the right to use another personās body against their will. Sounds a bit like slavery.
Now...why are you openly advocating for murder?
Nor is a woman's life in immediate danger when some dude is FUCKING her against her will.Exactly. And that womanās life is not at immediate risk due to that baby in the womb. So do not try to equate abortion to āself defenseā. Thatās absurd.
And the woman is 100% not required to give her body to another. ANYONE!!lol. You act as if the baby intentionally, willfully showed up in the mothers womb. That is ludicrous, the baby is 100% innocent, do you understand that?
If you are so worried about it, you and all the other people who are so desperately concerned about these worthless bastard spawn can carry them in YOUR bodies if you wish.
If the baby can't live outside of the woman's body, TOUGH SHIT!!! SUCKS TO BE YOU!!!
So, once a woman invites a man to put his penis in her MUST keep fucking until dude gets his?It was the mother's own actions that implicitly invited the baby, therefore baby has the right to be exactly where he or she is.
BULLSHIT!!!
Consent to use her body can be revoked at any time for any reason or no reason at all.
They may have a moral obligation, but they should not have a legal obligation. "Moral obligations" are the tools of statists.See above. Parents have a moral obligation to care for their child.
So, successful people have a moral obligation to give their money to the poor, by government force? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Is that it?
How commie of you. You don't see your inconsistency?
A true libertarian does not demand involuntary servitude by government force.lol. Nice rant, but a true libertarian doesnāt violate the nonaggression principle, and the most basic human right of all, the right to life. You are supporting āmight makes right.ā Deal with it.
64%, 66%, and 69%, depending on the poll. of American want Rowe v Wade to standWhat exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?
Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.
If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.
Debunking the myth of āback-alleyā abortions
U.S. Abortion Statistics
Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"
https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade
Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Havenāt
It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts
What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?
Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.
If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.
Debunking the myth of āback-alleyā abortions
U.S. Abortion Statistics
Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"
https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade
Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Havenāt
It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts
Yeah, we should do away with the social safety net and force poor people to have more kids. Maybe they can sell them to rich folks as slaves.There is nothing funnier than listening to socialists whine about the problems their idiotic ideology - and subsequent policies - created.What would be better than straining our overburdened social services even further?
Consider the source. This clown P@triot claimed a fetus was an adult female.Yeah, we should do away with the social safety net and force poor people to have more kids. Maybe they can sell them to rich folks as slaves.There is nothing funnier than listening to socialists whine about the problems their idiotic ideology - and subsequent policies - created.What would be better than straining our overburdened social services even further?
You cant read what you replied to? Here you go.What was your question ? The 40 ways to end your unborn babies life ?From the fact that a womans body is her property? Now can you answer my question instead of deflecting?Where did you get the idea that you can just kill your baby is the better question ??Where does that say you are designated as the person to stop all killing? Its a personal commandment, not a license to interfere with what someone else is doing.Thou shalt not KILL.
Where does that say (in the bible) you are designated as the person to stop all killing?
Government force. Doesn't get any more libertarian than that.If you have no respect for human life, you have no respect for liberty. You are advocating (this is assuming youāre not trolling) āmight makes rightā and violent killing of the most innocent among us.
Did you track down the fathers of those children?
Government force. Doesn't get any more libertarian than that.If you have no respect for human life, you have no respect for liberty. You are advocating (this is assuming youāre not trolling) āmight makes rightā and violent killing of the most innocent among us.
Nothing is more "might makes right" than the all-powerful, military and police controlling government forcing individuals to carry and birth an unwanted child.I actually didnāt say anything about government. But I am saying this, a true libertarian doesnāt advocate violation of the nonaggression principle, āmight makes rightā and trampling on the most precious, basic right of allā¦ the right to life. Without a respect for human life, you cannot have liberty.
Are you saying that I need to track myself down? Youre not making sense.Contraception doesnt always work. Every single one of my children were conceived while the mother was on contraception.This whole issue could easily be solved by contraception. It would fix the issue. Slot less pregnancies would please both sides.
Did you track down the fathers of those children?
