When is Pro-Life pro-life?

[GoDemocratic]

Because it's not pro-life. Pro-life means you have a consistent ethic of life. It's not arbritrary. Anything else is pro-some-life.

Then maybe it's pro-choice! You choose which lives can remain and which lives to end.

Pro-choice vs pro-choice!

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

 

[Chuz Life]

When is Pro-Life pro-life?

When you care about the baby and the mother at least as much as you care about the fetus.

and you care about the innocent condemned man as much as you care about the fetus.

Different issue however.

Bro, let me say that you can correctly argue that killing a fetus is killing life. Ok, I got it. But, lets look at something. You are not looking at this far enough into the future. Let's suppose no-abortions actually became law, then there is going to be more welfare babies around. After all, the young girl can't support herself and her baby without working and maybe not even if she did work. So, you vote for the GOP and how are they going to handle this? It's going to be with no welfare, no food stamps and for sure no health insurance for these new babies. So, what are you trying to create here , England 1200? The GOP is all for it until it might start costing them a dollar. That's different. Then they would not be able to give as big a tax break to the wealthy. If you vote for them, then you will never obtain no abortions even though they are all for it until you tell them to accommodate it somehow and you will be betrayed. Only the $ talks to the GOP.

Before I try to answer this in detail.... let me ask... are you agreeing that an abortion kills a child? That legalized abortion denies children their rights and personhood?

Or no?

 

[GoDemocratic]

Pro-choice vs pro-choice!

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

Not when you factor in their behavior changes - following the removal of the "abortion is legal" safety net.

No.

And it won't be only the women's behavior that will change.

All the abusive men who (for now) use legalized abortion as their safety net and way out of 18 years of child support will likely change too.

"On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise?" --
I think its obvious, you already have sex education and you still have teen births. So, let's see you get the GOP to support this financially (???) . I can tell you that you would have a better chance lobbying the Democratic party because the GOP revolves around the $ and nothing more. As soon as you explain to them that this will cost something, that's when the hot air starts.

 

[keepitreal]

Why is this only about pro-Life and pro-Death Penalty?

Shouldn't this also be about those who are pro-Choice but have no problem cheerleading for America to bomb countries that are no threat to American actual National Security?

How many innocent people are America's bombs killing, how many innocent Iraqi's, Afghans, Syrians, Libyans have been killed?

How many innocent people were killed when Bill Clinton the pro-Choice favourite dropped bombs on Serbia during the Balkans War?

Why is this only pro-Life and pro-Death Penalty and not also pro-Bombs Away on innocent civilians?

I agree. But how does pro-choice enter into that since they don't make the claim of being "pro-life"?

I admire real pro-life people, and many of them oppose abortion, the death penalty, and war. I think the Quakers fall into that group.

"But how does pro-choice enter into that since they don't make the claim of being "pro-life"?"

That makes the pro-Choice side just pro-Death then.

Killing babies In Utero is okay because allowing them to live will be inconvenient to the womans lifestyle, dropping bombs on innocent civilians is okay as long as it's a Leftist politician ordering those bombs to be dropped, when it's a Rightist politician ordering the dropping of bombs that will kill innocent civilians it isn't okay anymore.

I think you missed it. These libtardz are not prodeath (at least most aren't per se) they are simply pro abortion and a pro on a lot of other leftarded "choices."

Are they "pro choice" on absolutely everything?

Nope.

They are ANTI CHOICE in most cases when it comes to guns, school CHOICE, Government recognition of religion, taxation, business choices, etc.

The ONLY choices they give a shit about are those that further their leftarded agenda.

These libtardz are not prodeath (at least most aren't per se) they are simply pro abortion and a pro on a lot of other leftarded "choices."

IMO, pro choice has more to do with, 'the right to choose
what constitutes life' more than anything

Its so much easier for a woman to convince herself
she's just 'removing a blob of tissue that's isn't alive'....
and that is my right.

You know, I'm pro accountability and anti irresponsibility
The one thing wrong in this country is the lack of consequences
because consequences have become discriminatory.

Ultimately, anything anyone does, is between them and God.
I'm against abortion because someone was irresponsible,
but, at the end of the day, she will never have to answer to me.

I'm not a stupid person but,
that hasn't prevented me from making stupid choices

Many hugs and high fives!

Many hugs and high fives!

 

[keepitreal]

The topic of the thread is how the term "Pro Life" might be confusing, for example, being Pro Birth and also Pro Death penalty.
I clarified the matter by pointing-out that Pro Birth people are usually concerned to stop women from getting an abortion and after the birth these fanatics are not heard of as they carry-on to harass other women and medical physicians.

All of that is a crock of shit of course.

Not to mention how pathetic it is to use the unfortunate conditions of one set of children to deny rights to others.... you are simply wrong. Because, we support all the same laws and protections for born children that we do those who you are now in denial of.

Your post tells me that you only see what you want to see. No matter though. We will keep pushing on despite you.

I simply find it appalling that religious fanatics would force a child in the Bible Belt to continue with a pregnancy after being raped by her father. Such laws are primitive.

There are a large number of people who do not support abortion who are not religious fanatics, some of them are atheists. So you ought to climb off that idiotic meme, the discussion should center around the extent to which we value life irregardless of religion. I am not entirely sure a child is in a position to make the best decision for herself vis-a-vis aborting her baby. Certainly it's not the baby's fault, the circumstances of the conception is not sufficient reason to arbitrarily decide to end the baby's life. There are women who had an abortion done and regret it later in life, so it shouldn't be that cut and dried. Either way it's a tough call, especially if the baby has passed the 24 week point where he/she may already be a viable person.

Forcing a woman who is the victim of rape to carry the rapists fetus to term is quite shocking.

I agree.

But on the other hand. . . Any woman who decides to carry that child to term and give it a chance in life that it wouldn't otherwise have?

I have a hard time imagining a stronger woman than one who does that. Much respect.

I agree.

But on the other hand. . . Any woman who decides to carry that child to term and give it a chance in life that it wouldn't otherwise have?

I have a hard time imagining a stronger woman than one who does that. Much respect.

A woman whose strength is her faith to trust God
would have the baby and forgive the rapist

 

[ScienceRocks]

All of that is a crock of shit of course.

Not to mention how pathetic it is to use the unfortunate conditions of one set of children to deny rights to others.... you are simply wrong. Because, we support all the same laws and protections for born children that we do those who you are now in denial of.

Your post tells me that you only see what you want to see. No matter though. We will keep pushing on despite you.

I simply find it appalling that religious fanatics would force a child in the Bible Belt to continue with a pregnancy after being raped by her father. Such laws are primitive.

There are a large number of people who do not support abortion who are not religious fanatics, some of them are atheists. So you ought to climb off that idiotic meme, the discussion should center around the extent to which we value life irregardless of religion. I am not entirely sure a child is in a position to make the best decision for herself vis-a-vis aborting her baby. Certainly it's not the baby's fault, the circumstances of the conception is not sufficient reason to arbitrarily decide to end the baby's life. There are women who had an abortion done and regret it later in life, so it shouldn't be that cut and dried. Either way it's a tough call, especially if the baby has passed the 24 week point where he/she may already be a viable person.

Forcing a woman who is the victim of rape to carry the rapists fetus to term is quite shocking.

I agree.

But on the other hand. . . Any woman who decides to carry that child to term and give it a chance in life that it wouldn't otherwise have?

I have a hard time imagining a stronger woman than one who does that. Much respect.

I agree.

But on the other hand. . . Any woman who decides to carry that child to term and give it a chance in life that it wouldn't otherwise have?

I have a hard time imagining a stronger woman than one who does that. Much respect.

A woman whose strength is her faith to trust God
would have the baby and forgive the rapist

I believe the rapist should be executed.

 

[Chuz Life]

All of that is a crock of shit of course.

Not to mention how pathetic it is to use the unfortunate conditions of one set of children to deny rights to others.... you are simply wrong. Because, we support all the same laws and protections for born children that we do those who you are now in denial of.

Your post tells me that you only see what you want to see. No matter though. We will keep pushing on despite you.

I simply find it appalling that religious fanatics would force a child in the Bible Belt to continue with a pregnancy after being raped by her father. Such laws are primitive.

You are a special kind of fucktarded individual to think that all who oppose abortions are coming from a religious point of view. You are equally fucked in the head when you are so oblivious to the fact that most people (religious or not) would support exceptions to bans on abortions - to allow them in cases like rape or to save the life of the mother.

You want to have a debate on the exceptions? Fucktard?

I'm ready for that one too.

And by the same token, many on the pro-choice side suppport LIMITS on elective abortion.

So much for "her body her choice!"

Right?

Up to a point - just like, as you point out, many pro-lifers will allow exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.

This is key.

Up to what point?

 

[Alena36]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

 

[Chuz Life]

When is Pro-Life pro-life?

When you care about the baby and the mother at least as much as you care about the fetus.

and you care about the innocent condemned man as much as you care about the fetus.

Different issue however.

Bro, let me say that you can correctly argue that killing a fetus is killing life. Ok, I got it. But, lets look at something. You are not looking at this far enough into the future. Let's suppose no-abortions actually became law, then there is going to be more welfare babies around. After all, the young girl can't support herself and her baby without working and maybe not even if she did work. So, you vote for the GOP and how are they going to handle this? It's going to be with no welfare, no food stamps and for sure no health insurance for these new babies. So, what are you trying to create here , England 1200? The GOP is all for it until it might start costing them a dollar. That's different. Then they would not be able to give as big a tax break to the wealthy. If you vote for them, then you will never obtain no abortions even though they are all for it until you tell them to accommodate it somehow and you will be betrayed. Only the $ talks to the GOP.

Before I try to answer this in detail.... let me ask... are you agreeing that an abortion kills a child? That legalized abortion denies children their rights and personhood?

Or no?

Hello?

 

[Chuz Life]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

 

[Mudda]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

I know I'm not going to get a real answer for this, but here goes: what is your plan to uphold the Constitutional right of unborn children?

 

[Chuz Life]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

I know I'm not going to get a real answer for this, but here goes: what is your plan to uphold the Constitutional right of unborn children?

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

I know I'm not going to get a real answer for this, but here goes: what is your plan to uphold the Constitutional right of unborn children?

The same way everyone else's rights are being upheld. Just as the Supreme Court explained in their comments quoted in my signature.

 

[Coyote]

I simply find it appalling that religious fanatics would force a child in the Bible Belt to continue with a pregnancy after being raped by her father. Such laws are primitive.

You are a special kind of fucktarded individual to think that all who oppose abortions are coming from a religious point of view. You are equally fucked in the head when you are so oblivious to the fact that most people (religious or not) would support exceptions to bans on abortions - to allow them in cases like rape or to save the life of the mother.

You want to have a debate on the exceptions? Fucktard?

I'm ready for that one too.

And by the same token, many on the pro-choice side suppport LIMITS on elective abortion.

So much for "her body her choice!"

Right?

Up to a point - just like, as you point out, many pro-lifers will allow exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.

This is key.

Up to what point?

And that is the most difficult question of all.

Once the fetus is mature enough to survive without a womb then it has its own rights to be considered and abortion should only be for the mothers life or health.

 

[Mudda]

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

I know I'm not going to get a real answer for this, but here goes: what is your plan to uphold the Constitutional right of unborn children?

What if pro life and pro choice just agreed to change there names to their literal meaning so we don't have all this confusion.

Pro life hmm could be "anti abortion" and could have subgroups if needed with identifying names. Such as anti abortion with exceptions a,b,c.


Pro choice could be "pro legal abortion". They could also have subgroups for differences on certain opinions. Such as a name for those who think abortion should be legal until certain time a,b,c etc

Maybe there would be another group in the middle or some with a specific views.and that group could have a identifying name as well.

So anti abortion I think that needs a group with a explanation is those who have the view

when a women gets pregnant that is a human she is pregnant with. Humans have the same value at all stages of development. All humans begin their development when a woman is pregnant. So the rational is that unborn human developing is the same as a newborn toddler child teen adult . The unborn is a human at the first part of development. So just as a baby or toddler Hasn't developed many things humans develop as they get older doesn't mean that they have less value.

Sometimes it all comes down to. Do people view the unborn as a human that is different from an alive human or not .

If the answer is no then it makes sense that you are pro choice . If you disagree with the people that come from the view unborn humans are as valuable as born humans. Then I think that the two people discussing can agree to disagree . They have different views on life humans value etc. there are more than 1 side that can be right by their views.if pro choice does not think they have the same value it can make complete sense on the points they make.

When talking to people I have found it's easier if we early establish our fundamental views on what the unborn child is in our view.

I actually prefer to be called antiabortion and have said so in the past. Prolifers tend to oppose abortion for religious reasons and I don't. The Constitution and the biological facts are all I need to know that abortions deny children their Constitutional rights.

I know I'm not going to get a real answer for this, but here goes: what is your plan to uphold the Constitutional right of unborn children?

The same way everyone else's rights are being upheld. Just as the Supreme Court explained in their comments quoted in my signature.

What I meant is once you win your case like your sig says, what are your plans to uphold that new law?

 

[Coyote]

It is all a matter of rights and who's rights a paramount at any given time. At no time should an unborn child's rights exceed the mothers right to live or retain her health unless she chooses.

What "right" does an unborn child have to another persons body?

 

[Chuz Life]

You are a special kind of fucktarded individual to think that all who oppose abortions are coming from a religious point of view. You are equally fucked in the head when you are so oblivious to the fact that most people (religious or not) would support exceptions to bans on abortions - to allow them in cases like rape or to save the life of the mother.

You want to have a debate on the exceptions? Fucktard?

I'm ready for that one too.

And by the same token, many on the pro-choice side suppport LIMITS on elective abortion.

So much for "her body her choice!"

Right?

Up to a point - just like, as you point out, many pro-lifers will allow exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.

This is key.

Up to what point?

And that is the most difficult question of all.

Once the fetus is mature enough to survive without a womb then it has its own rights to be considered and abortion should only be for the mothers life or health.

Says who?

And how the fuck does that confirm with our fetal HOMICIDE laws that are not based on viability?

 

[Chuz Life]

It is all a matter of rights and who's rights a paramount at any given time. At no time should an unborn child's rights exceed the mothers right to live or retain her health unless she chooses.

What "right" does an unborn child have to another persons body?

If I were to connect your body to mine in such a way that you will DIE if that connection was broke before say, nine months....

Would you or would you not have a right to the use of my body for that time?

 

[Mudda]

It is all a matter of rights and who's rights a paramount at any given time. At no time should an unborn child's rights exceed the mothers right to live or retain her health unless she chooses.

What "right" does an unborn child have to another persons body?

If I were to connect your body to mine in such a way that you will DIE if that connection was broke before say, nine months....

Would you or would you not have a right to the use of my body for that time?

Depends, do YOU die if the connection is broken?

 

[Chuz Life]

It is all a matter of rights and who's rights a paramount at any given time. At no time should an unborn child's rights exceed the mothers right to live or retain her health unless she chooses.

What "right" does an unborn child have to another persons body?

If I were to connect your body to mine in such a way that you will DIE if that connection was broke before say, nine months....

Would you or would you not have a right to the use of my body for that time?

Depends, do YOU die if the connection is broken?

Would you or would you not have a right to maintain the connection, to keep yourself alive?

It's a simple yes or no answer.

 

[Mudda]

It is all a matter of rights and who's rights a paramount at any given time. At no time should an unborn child's rights exceed the mothers right to live or retain her health unless she chooses.

What "right" does an unborn child have to another persons body?

If I were to connect your body to mine in such a way that you will DIE if that connection was broke before say, nine months....

Would you or would you not have a right to the use of my body for that time?

Depends, do YOU die if the connection is broken?

Would you or would you not have a right to maintain the connection, to keep yourself alive?

It's a simple yes or no answer.

No. Now answer my question: how would you enforce your sig law?