Why do you hate

[alang1216]

so your solution is to kill the child,,got it

So your solution is to let the child suffer and then let it die? Got it.

 

[progressive hunter]

so your solution is to kill the child,,got it

So your solution is to let the child suffer and then let it die? Got it.

I never said that,,,
what I said is there are already solutions to that other than forced abortions,,,


now back to the real issue of 95% of abortions are for convenience,,,

 

[Hollie]

Predictably, those who are screeching against abortion rights and women's health issues are the hyper-religious men who have only a peripheral involvement in childbearing.

Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of the State to impose their personal (usually religious) coercion upon others is antithetical to what the majority of Americans want.

The extremists’ view and their desire to impose it upon others via state coersion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fœtus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent, hence, Roe vs. Wade

Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest to just those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to the statute at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing oneargument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother’s health moot, if the state chooses to peruse it.

 

[TrueTT]

WithM

Why do so many of you hate God and people of faith?

I don't hate God since I don't believe he exists. I don't hate Zeus either for the same reason. I don't hate people of faith but I do hate what some people of faith have done and continue to do in the name of faith. Flying planes into buildings is an obvious example but enacting laws that affect me in the name of their faith is essentially the same thing.

Maybe you can answer:

• Why do people of faith hate people of other faiths?
  
• Why do people of faith hate people with no faith?

are you referring to the law that doesnt allow you to murder your child???

I'm referring to any law that gives a single cell, a fertilized egg, more rights than an adult human being.

With few exceptions, women have an alternate choice to abortion, it's called "NO". No to sex, to unprotected sex. Abortion has become a common method of birth control, killing unwanted children because Mom couldn't control herself. "NO" is a way to exert a woman's choice. Why do so many women not know that? Or is it more convenient to ignore that choice?

I lean liberal on almost everything.

Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.

 

[BreezeWood]

Not the fetus's, no. The fetus isn't a person and has no rights. Until it is born, it is strictly the property of the mother.

I understand you have to say that to justify murder,,,its the only way you can sleep at night,,,

.

I understand you have to say that to justify murder,,,its the only way you can sleep at night,,,

christians since the 4th century have slept at night persecuting and victimizing the innocent, it's only during periods where their power is removed from them - Roe v Wade - that they toss sleeplessly in regret.

whine to someone else about your misfortune, sinner keep your hands to yourself.

Dear BreezeWood
Back to this issue of addressing what "Christians have done in the past" --

Do you believe in respecting civil law standards on
DUE PROCESS and not declaring or punishing people as guilty
for wrongs that OTHER PEOPLE did?

Do you believe all people deserve not to be deprived of liberty
or treated as guilty WITHOUT PROOF of what EACH PERSON
did wrong?

Or do you believe it is moral to "collectively condemn" a person "as a group" because of what OTHERS did, especially in the past.

NOTE: If you believe "collective punishment without proof" is okay, what if this were applied to YOU.

For example: Do you approve of people judging you and me "collectively as a group," because we both "use the internet for communication" and "in the PAST" the INTERNET has been used to "persecute, harass and victimize by bullying."

Is the BEHAVIOR and persecution/victimization done by others any justification for judging or condemning you and me by association?

Or would you expect people to PROVE you had personally committed such wrongs before trying to blame you for what others have done?

What do you believe is the better standard to follow?

.

Do you believe in respecting civil law standards on
DUE PROCESS and not declaring or punishing people as guilty
for wrongs that OTHER PEOPLE did?

when those of the same community have no remorse, then yes they are as culpable -

I have said before, you wrote your bible in the 4th century and do not reflect the events of the 1st century - the 1st century understood jesus was mortal and was not claiming to be a messiah - you on the otherhand promote your 4th century misscharacterization of the events - you have no remorse and are culpable of all the crimes committed using your forged christian bible.

BreezeWood

So if you are falsely accused by others,
and show "no remorse" because you have no idea and no understanding
HOW or WHAT you are being accused of by others.

This automatically makes you guilty of that accusation by others?

You really believe justice works this way?

Do you really AGREE to be judged by accusations of others
MERELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT YOU SHOW NO REMORSE?

???

.

So if you are falsely accused by others,
and show "no remorse" because you have no idea and no understanding
HOW or WHAT you are being accused of by others.

it has been explained to you -

your 4th century book inaccurately uses the 1st century events for its own purposes without accreditation.

the 1st century primary character was mortal and did not claim to be a messiah ... you are culpable for the crimes against humanity your christian bible is responsible for when you engage in the same activity without accreditation.

there is no christ jesus from the 1st century.

christians revel their past history, there is no remorse - you are one of them.

 

[alang1216]

I never said that,,,
what I said is there are already solutions to that other than forced abortions,,

Great! What are the solutions?

 

[Hollie]

WithM

Why do so many of you hate God and people of faith?

I don't hate God since I don't believe he exists. I don't hate Zeus either for the same reason. I don't hate people of faith but I do hate what some people of faith have done and continue to do in the name of faith. Flying planes into buildings is an obvious example but enacting laws that affect me in the name of their faith is essentially the same thing.

Maybe you can answer:

• Why do people of faith hate people of other faiths?
  
• Why do people of faith hate people with no faith?

are you referring to the law that doesnt allow you to murder your child???

I'm referring to any law that gives a single cell, a fertilized egg, more rights than an adult human being.

With few exceptions, women have an alternate choice to abortion, it's called "NO". No to sex, to unprotected sex. Abortion has become a common method of birth control, killing unwanted children because Mom couldn't control herself. "NO" is a way to exert a woman's choice. Why do so many women not know that? Or is it more convenient to ignore that choice?

I lean liberal on almost everything.

Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.

Right. So we understand from your post that all decisions about sex and prevention of pregnancy fall to the woman. Yet, you then insist that no choices are allowed for women when it comes to consequences of unwanted pregnancy.

Isn't that convenient.

 

[progressive hunter]

I never said that,,,
what I said is there are already solutions to that other than forced abortions,,

Great! What are the solutions?

so youre going to continue to ignore 95% of the problem and focus on the rest,,,

I cant give you a solution to a generalization,,,please be specific,,,,

 

[MindWars]

Why do so many of you hate God and people of faith?

Because they can't fk anything they want
Because having morals and values of ones body left a long time ago
Because young minds are easy to make hate GOD why they can't do the fun things..................

The list is so big but it never matters eating yourselves alive we warned the stooges of society.

 

[rightwinger]

WithM

Why do so many of you hate God and people of faith?

I don't hate God since I don't believe he exists. I don't hate Zeus either for the same reason. I don't hate people of faith but I do hate what some people of faith have done and continue to do in the name of faith. Flying planes into buildings is an obvious example but enacting laws that affect me in the name of their faith is essentially the same thing.

Maybe you can answer:

• Why do people of faith hate people of other faiths?
  
• Why do people of faith hate people with no faith?

are you referring to the law that doesnt allow you to murder your child???

I'm referring to any law that gives a single cell, a fertilized egg, more rights than an adult human being.

With few exceptions, women have an alternate choice to abortion, it's called "NO". No to sex, to unprotected sex. Abortion has become a common method of birth control, killing unwanted children because Mom couldn't control herself. "NO" is a way to exert a woman's choice. Why do so many women not know that? Or is it more convenient to ignore that choice?

I lean liberal on almost everything.

Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.

Tax dollars do not fund abortions

 

[progressive hunter]

WithM

I don't hate God since I don't believe he exists. I don't hate Zeus either for the same reason. I don't hate people of faith but I do hate what some people of faith have done and continue to do in the name of faith. Flying planes into buildings is an obvious example but enacting laws that affect me in the name of their faith is essentially the same thing.

Maybe you can answer:

• Why do people of faith hate people of other faiths?
  
• Why do people of faith hate people with no faith?

are you referring to the law that doesnt allow you to murder your child???

I'm referring to any law that gives a single cell, a fertilized egg, more rights than an adult human being.

With few exceptions, women have an alternate choice to abortion, it's called "NO". No to sex, to unprotected sex. Abortion has become a common method of birth control, killing unwanted children because Mom couldn't control herself. "NO" is a way to exert a woman's choice. Why do so many women not know that? Or is it more convenient to ignore that choice?

I lean liberal on almost everything.

Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.

Tax dollars do not fund abortions

you are either a liar or an ignorant fool,,,

there are no other options,,,

 

[rightwinger]

Why do so many of you hate God and people of faith?

Because they can't fk anything they want
Because having morals and values of ones body left a long time ago
Because young minds are easy to make hate GOD why they can't do the fun things..................

The list is so big but it never matters eating yourselves alive we warned the stooges of society.

Because they can't fk anything they want
Because having morals and values of ones body left a long time ago
Because young minds are easy to make hate GOD why they can't do the fun things..................


Applies to our President

 

[BreezeWood]

WithM

are you referring to the law that doesnt allow you to murder your child???

I'm referring to any law that gives a single cell, a fertilized egg, more rights than an adult human being.

With few exceptions, women have an alternate choice to abortion, it's called "NO". No to sex, to unprotected sex. Abortion has become a common method of birth control, killing unwanted children because Mom couldn't control herself. "NO" is a way to exert a woman's choice. Why do so many women not know that? Or is it more convenient to ignore that choice?

I lean liberal on almost everything.

Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.

Tax dollars do not fund abortions

you are either a liar or an ignorant fool,,,

there are no other options,,,

.

you are either a liar or an ignorant fool,,,

there are no other options,,,

are you whining about the - Affordable Car Act ... sinner.

 

[alang1216]

I cant give you a solution to a generalization,,,please be specific,,,,

Here's a specific case, a mother of 2 children really wants another child. She is told by her doctor that she is pregnant and the fetus has severe Achondrogenesis. The fetus is doomed to live a short, painful life. The mother has 2 choices I can see, abort the fetus and start over or carry the fetus to term and then watch it suffer and die, and then start over. What option would you advise?

I understand why you want to talk about the other 95% but I to understand this up before I'm ready to address other issues.

 

[ding]

Are you willing to say... the hell with your invisible code of common decency. I know it’s wrong and I don’t care.

Your premise is mistaken. If I think something is wrong, I won't accept it because I do care about right and wrong. I just don't agree with your views of them.

That doesn’t make me wrong. That makes me correct.

You have rationalized a wrong as a right. You can't believe that abortion is a good thing. No one will admit to that. Which means we know it is wrong. If it were as you said... not wrong, then no one would have any need to feel bad about abortion.

So if we start from the position that abortion is wrong and you are rationalizing you aren't violating the law of right and wrong, then you have proven me exactly correct when I said that man knows the difference between right and wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes he didn't violate it.

dblack on the other hand was honest. He didn't abandon the concept of right and wrong. He said the hell with the concept. I know it's bad and I still choose it. That was honest. He was honest with me and he was honest with himself.

You love your absolutes but there are few of them in the real world. I don't like abortions and I'm glad I've never been involved in such a decision. However there are always other 'wrongs' that have to be balanced: raising an unwanted child, risks to the mother's health, abnormalities, etc.

You keep proving my point. You acknowledge they are bad on one hand and rationalize they are good with the other one.

I can 100%, unequivocally say abortion is bad. It is never good.

Why can't you say you know they are bad but you still support them? Because being moral is hardwired into you. It's universal. You desire so much to be good that you can't bring yourself to say something that makes you look bad. If you are looking for proof of God, there it is.

 

[ding]

So the only question that needs to be answered to close this circle is why would an atheist even care about the law of right and wrong unless it was hardwired into him?

It’s not hard
It is basic compassion

Why do the religious need it spelled out for them?

Which is hardwired into us. But it goes beyond compassion. Ultimately it rests on the human construct of fairness.

Does the sheep cry it’s not fair that the wolf eats us?

You literally have no reason to expect fairness other than it is hardwired into you.

Dogs show compassion too

Sometimes. Are you arguing that animals are moral or something?

 

[ding]

Do you have anymore fringe arguments you want to trot out?

You say fringe, I say central.

Do you even statistics?

Do you understand the concept of distributions?

Somewhat. I do know the difference between numbers and people.

It’s the numbers that make your argument a fringe argument.

It's the people involved that make it central.

That's stupid. You do understand the difference between the rule and the exception, right?

 

[ding]

Seriously... is there no one here that is willing to say the hell with your invisible code of common decency. I know it’s wrong and I don’t care. I still support a woman’s choice to end the life of her baby - that she didn’t even know she had until it looked more like a baby than a clump of tissue. I don’t care.

How about it? Any takers?

All except for the "I don't care" part. I see abortion as real tragedy - much like suicide. But, like suicide, it's stupid to make it illegal and doing so causes more harm than good. Government can't solve every problem.

in suicide youre killing yourself in abortion youre killing someone else,,,,

It doesn't matter whether you think it's another person. If it's inside of someone else's body, it's none of your business. If you try to make it your business, you will create far more problems than you solve.

It's all of our business. The fact that the pendulum is swinging the other way is proof that it is our business.

The pendulum swinging the other way is proof you're going to try to make it your business. It will prove to be a mistake. No matter how much you may want to control society, there's only so much government can do. Overreaching always fails. Liberals and conservatives alike enamored with the idea that they can reshape society in their own image by passing laws. They are wrong.

It was inevitable that it would swing this way just like it was inevitable that slavery would swing that way.

 

[ding]

dblack on the other hand was honest. He didn't abandon the concept of right and wrong. He said the hell with the concept. I know it's bad and I still choose it. That was honest. He was honest with me and he was honest with himself.

I'm not "choosing" bad. I'm saying your solution is worse.

I’m not sure how it’s worse as no one died but putting that aside sometimes doing the right thing is hard.

Don’t you believe in personal accountability? Isn’t being accountable hard sometimes? Should one not be accountable because being accountable is hard?

Making abortion illegal isn't doing the right thing. Believe it or not, laws aren't the solution to every problem.

Technically they haven't made abortion illegal. They are placing restrictions on abortion.

 

[ding]

No. Once independent of the mother, she AND society get a say in it's future.

If you wouldn’t kill it after than it should have no bearing on killing it before.

It is you who see no difference between an egg and an adult, not me. I see fundamental changes in the development of a baby.

Dear alang1216
The REAL issues being missed aren't about the egg or fetus vs. mother at all.
A. Laws aren't addressing the MEN in the decisions to have sex
that LEAD to either unwanted pregnancy or abortion.
If we start addressing that, where both partners are EQUALLY
responsible BEFORE SEX AND PREGNANCY OCCUR
then we rewrite the whole equation instead of focusing
on just the "egg or fetus vs the adult mother"

Where is the FATHER or the MAN in all this?
That's one thing missing causing DISPARITY from the start.

B. The Constitutional part missed
Instead of focusing on
* rights of the mother or woman's due process
* rights of the unborn child
Where people WOULD be equal is respecting BELIEFS EQUALLY -- NOT creating situations
or passing laws that violate the BELIEFS of one person or group or another

So REGARDLESS if we are
* prochoice IN BELIEFS
and don't believe legislation against abortion are fair or practical, or we are
* prolife in BELIEFS
and don't believe any other rights or laws should disparage the right to life of the unborn

the CONSTITUTION would require
* NO SUCH BELIEFS either be Prohibited NOR Established where it compromises others
(ie with both prochoice and prolife beliefs, both are guaranteed protection of the laws
instead of violating one or the other by passing biased laws)
* No such rights should be DISPARAGED or compromised
but ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED

IN order to achieve that, clearly we cannot intervene AFTER pregnancy occurs because WE DON'T AGREE at that point.
The place we CAN agree is at the point we AVOID unwanted pregnancy to begin with.
So that's where we need to focus
in order to satisfy ALL beliefs and rights, and violate NONE of them.

The only disagreement I have with what you've written is ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED. A fine sentiment but an impossible goal since there is a fundamental conflict in people's values. I think pro-lifers honestly believe pro-choicers are evil and will never compromise their values on this issue.

I don't believe proponents of abortion are evil. Just misguided.